identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
03F9146823102F69FF2506B1FA70FE7A.text	03F9146823102F69FF2506B1FA70FE7A.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa Schaus 1928	<div><p>Roelofa Schaus, 1928: 640</p><p>Type species. Perophora olivia Schaus, 1896; Schaus 1928: 640 by original designation.</p><p>Diagnosis. Among Mimallonidae, Roelofa does not closely resemble any other genus. The species belonging to Roelofa can be recognized by the straight or nearly straight postmedial line of the forewing which, upon reaching Rs 3, combines with a black streak reaching the wing apex. The genitalia are most similar to those of Menevia but display variously shaped lobes that extend outward from the mesal base of the valvae. The gnathos arms are generally species-specific in shape, but are always paired and elongated, nearly reaching the saccular edge of valve when in their natural position. The phallus is simple and is weakly connected to paired arms which extend dorsally over the phallus among a dense region of diaphragmal setae. These arms are not unlike the “juxtal processes” of St Laurent and Dombroskie (2016), but are not so strongly sclerotized nor affixed to the juxta. Spines on the phallus and certain diaphragmal setae in male genitalia are apparently deciduous due to them both being lost together in some dissections (and the ease at which they fall out while dissecting). Additionally, the vincular “tusks” of Menevia are absent in Roelofa . The female genitalia are robust structures, albeit rather nondescript, the VIII segment is heavily sclerotized and dorsally forms a posteriorly directed arch, the corpus bursae is thick and baglike, which together with the ductus bursae is not much longer than the remainder of the genitalia. The apophyses anteriores are absent or reduced to small lumps but the apophyses posteriores are present and usually very thick.</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Eyes very large, occupying more than two-thirds area of head; antenna pale brown, tan, basal half to two thirds bipectinate, distal remainder serrate or filiform; labial palpus highly reduced, hardly extending to edge of frons, apparently three segmented but individual segments extremely small, especially distalmost segment; vestigial proboscis present. Thorax: Coloration usually as for head, broad, clothed in thick vestiture. Legs: Coloration usually as for thorax, vestiture thick, long; tibial spurs small, often not visible due to them being hidden by longer tibial vestiture. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 10.5–26.0 mm, wingspan: 22.0–49.0 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth or mesally convex; apex somewhat falcate, except in R. olivia which has blunter apices. Ground color various shades of brown or pink, usually sparsely scattered with dark brown, tiny petiolate scales. Ante- and medial areas concolorous, displaying ground color, submarginally lighter. Antemedial line usually absent, dark postmedial line singular or consisting of two parallel lines, line preapical, but connects to dark streak shading in apical region above Rs 3. Discal mark variable. Fringe coloration variable. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, only varying slightly in shading, with fainter maculation. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, but postmedial line may be nearly absent. Frenulum apparently absent. Venation: Typical of Mimallonidae, but Rs 3 + Rs 4 quite long stalked with M1 arising as far as halfway along length of stalk of Rs 3 +Rs 4. Abdomen: Coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, long, distal tip of abdomen with elongated, dark-brown tipped scale tufts, tufts range in length from one quarter to one third length of abdomen. Genitalia: Vinculum ovoid, diaphragm with dense region of elongated setae. Uncus simple, distally blunt or narrowed. Gnathos robust, proximally rounded, with broad, dual mesal extensions that are fused together basally, mesal extensions variable in shape but always long, extending nearly to distal valvae margins. Valvae narrow, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is variously extended and modified, usually more heavily sclerotized than surrounding area. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus. Phallus simple, pistol-shaped with curving coecum which may be angled perpendicularly below phallus, phallus may be distally spined. Vesica bag-like. Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform except in R. elyanae where antennae as in male of that species. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male, though tibial spurs may be stouter. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 12.0–29.5 mm, wingspan: 22.5–54.0 mm. As for male, but broader overall with wider submarginal area. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, only varying slightly in shading, with fainter maculation. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, but postmedial line may be nearly absent. Frenulum apparently absent. Venation: Similar to males, but M1 arises closer to discal cell, not far along stalk of Rs 3 +Rs 4. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but in well-preserved specimens singular, darkened tuft of scales may be present. Genitalia: Robust; VIII a thickly sclerotized ring, continuous around circumference of segment or with gap ventrally at juncture with ostium bursae and ductus bursae, lamella antevaginalis not defined, lamella postvaginalis, if present, a simple plate, dorsally VIII mesally protruded or notched, but always thick, arching posteriorly. Apophyses anteriores vestigial or absent, apophyses posteriores present, usually very thickly sclerotized, robust, irregular in width along length, thickest mesally, knob-like or pointed apically. Membranous region between VIII and papillae anales expansive, often covered in short, thick setae. Ductus bursae thick, tubular sometimes with proximal region much wider than distal region, corpus bursae bag-like, circular. Papillae anales large, well-sclerotized, with setae of variable length.</p><p>Remarks. Four species of Roelofa have been included in a recent phylogenomic study of Mimallonidae (St Laurent et al. 2020) . According to the trees presented in St Laurent et al. (2020), R. elyanae is sister to the remain- der of the genus, with R. narga (Schaus, 1905) a clade containing R. hegewischi (Druce, 1887) and type species R. olivia . Roelofa maricia Schaus, 1928, R. maera Schaus, 1913, and R. monzoni were not included in that study, but they are morphologically very or relatively similar to the four species included in St Laurent et al. (2020). Therefore, we follow a phylogenetic arrangement in the treatment of Roelofa species below. Our COI tree (Fig. 1) recovers the same relationships among the taxa that are shared with the phylogenomic study of St Laurent et al. (2020). Here we include R. monzoni, which is recovered sister to R. hegewischi . Although our COI tree lacks some species of Roelofa, this tree is used primarily to discern close relationships between sister species R. hegewischi and R. monzoni, as well as to document the relatively low genetic variability among widely separated R. olivia populations.</p><p>Roelofa is one of the most widely distributed mimallonid genera, but one which contains relatively few species. The genus is known from central México south through Central America into South America, occurring on both sides of the Andes, as well as throughout the Amazon, Cerrado (savannah), and Mata Atlântica (Atlantic Forest) biomes. Very little is known about the natural history of Roelofa, except for an anecdotal report by Dognin (1922) for R. olivia which purported colonial nest building and silken tunnels. Construction of silken tunnels is not known for any other Mimallonidae, and gregarious behavior is rare (but see Mesquita et al. 2010). Data pertaining to the life history of one other species, is also known, and is more typical of Mimallonidae larval natural history. See the remarks for these species below for additional information.</p><p>Considering the phylogenetic placement of Roelofa, sister to much of the diversity of Mimallonidae, including all genera except Zaphanta, Roelofa is certainly of interest from an evolutionary perspective. It will be important to investigate the natural history strategies of this genus, including host plants and larval behavior, in an effort to understand the broader evolutionary history of Mimallonidae .</p><p>Key to species of Roelofa</p><p>Due to the rather distinct differences in external morphology and patterning among the seven species of Roelofa, we offer a key to wing patterning as it is the simplest way to differentiate species in this genus.</p><p>1 Outwardly, postmedial line accompanied by prominent dots at intersections with wing veins.......................... 2</p><p>- Outwardly, postmedial line not accompanied by dots at intersections with wing veins, either with outer line paralleling postmedial line, or no external markings along postmedial line....................................................... 3</p><p>2 Pale yellow suffusion near the discal cell bleeds into the angle between M 3 and CuA 1, distribution in Brazilian Atlantic Forest only.................................................................................. R. maera stat. rev.</p><p>- Pale yellow suffusion near the discal cell does not bleed into angle between M 3 and CuA 1, present in the Amazon, foothills of Andes, northern Cerrado......................................................................... R. narga</p><p>3 Submarginal region golden yellow, contrasting against darker purple-brown medial and antemedial areas....... R. elyanae</p><p>- Coloration not as above................................................................................ 4</p><p>4 Hyaline discal spot present on forewing, distributed in southeastern Brazil................................ R. maricia</p><p>- Forewing lacks hyaline discal spot, distributed in Central America and the Andes Mountains......................... 5</p><p>5 Antemedial, medial, and submarginal areas mostly concolorous, not distinctly contrasting, Central American............ 6</p><p>- Lighter submarginal area starkly contrasting against dark brown medial and antemedial areas, Andean............ R. olivia</p><p>6 Forewing postmedial line doubled, with outer line paralleling darker, inner postmedial line................. R. hegewischi</p><p>- Forewing postmedial line singular (faint suffusion possible tornally, but not completely lining outer margin of postmedial line)................................................................................... R. monzoni sp. n.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9146823102F69FF2506B1FA70FE7A	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F9146823162F64FF25031BFB79F943.text	03F9146823162F64FF25031BFB79F943.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa elyanae Herbin & Mielke 2014	<div><p>Roelofa elyanae Herbin &amp; Mielke, 2014</p><p>(Figs 2, 3, 5, 13, 19)</p><p>Roelofa elyanae Herbin &amp; Mielke, 2014: 142</p><p>Roelofa elyanae; St Laurent &amp; Kawahara 2019</p><p>Roelofa elyanae; St Laurent et al. 2020</p><p>Type material: HOLOTYPE ♂. BRAZIL: holotype, Roelofa elyanae HERBIN &amp; MIELKE det./ Brésil, Maranhão, Feira Nova do Maranhão, Retiro, 480 m, 10-XII-2011, 07°00’31’’S, 46°26’41’’W, C. MIELKE leg./ DZ 15.699/ Genitalia prep. D. Herbin ref. H 930/ (DZUP, examined) . Paratypes: 7 ♂, same locality and collector as holotype: 21–25.II.2012 (3 ♂), 16–17.II.2013 (4 ♂) (CGCM/CDH) .</p><p>Additional material examined: (31 ♂, 13 ♀ total) BRAZIL: Ceará: 1 ♂, Mun. Pacoti, Bairro Santana, 4°18’S, 38°52’W, 300 m: 1–5.II.2012, H. Thöny leg. (MWM). Bahia: 1 ♀, Form[osa do] R[io] Preto, 11°03’S, 45°12’W, 720 m: 24.I.1995, Coleção EMBRAPA-CPAC No. 15118 (CPAC). Maranhão: 3 ♂, 1 ♀, Feira Nova do Maranhão, Retiro, 07°00’31’’S, 46°26’41’’W, 480 m: 28.II.2017, C. Mielke leg., 32.332 Col. C. Mielke (1 ♀, CGCM); 20–27.I.2012, H. Thöny leg. (3 ♂, MWM). 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Balsas, 8°38’S, 46°43’W, 525 m: II.2000, Coleção Embrapa-CPAC, Nos. 20911, 20913 (CPAC). Distrito Federal: 7 ♂, 2 ♀, Estação Florestal, Cabeça do Veado, 1100 m: 18.X.1971 [1 ♂], 22.X.1971 [2 ♂], 23.X.1971 [1 ♂], 26.X.1971 [1 ♂], E.G., I. &amp; E.A. Munroe (5 ♂, CUIC); 22.X.1971, St Laurent dissection: 5-7-18:5 (1 ♂), 31.X.1971 (1 ♂), 24.X.1971, St Laurent dissection and MGCL DNA extraction LEP-61991 (2 ♀) (CNC). 1 ♂, Brasilia: 25.II.1966, ex. col. Gagarin (DZUP). 1 ♀, Brasilia: 18.X.1968, Tangerini leg. (DZUP). 5 ♂, 2 ♀, Planaltina, 15°35’S, 47°42’W, 1000 m: 8.III.1976, V.O. Becker leg., Col. Becker 18288, 18361, USNM-Mimal: 2338, 2340 (1 ♂, 1 ♀, USNM); 10.XI.1975, Becker genitalia prep. 2081 (1 ♂, VOB); 24.II.1976, Col. Becker 18346 (1 ♂, VOB); 28.II.1976, Col. Becker 18346 (1 ♀, VOB); 10.X.1976 (1 ♂, ISEZ); 8.X.1984, Col. Becker 10177, Becker genitalia prep. 2005 (1 ♂, VOB). Goiás: 1 ♂, Alto Paraíso [de Goiás], 1350 m: 20.II.2000, V.O. Becker Col., Col. Becker 120463 (VOB). 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Leopoldo [de] Bulhões: X.1938 (1 ♀), XI.1935 (1 ♂), Coll. R. Spitz, Brit. Mus. 1962-112, NHMUK010890562, 010890565 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, Vianópolis: XII.1931, R. Spitz, Brit. Mus. 1962-112, NHMUK010890564 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Between Vianópolis and Susiania [Silvânia]: 10.X.1969 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Ponte Funda, Vianópolis: 24.X.1968 (DZUP). Mato Grosso: 1 ♂, Chapada dos Guimarães, 800 m: 20.XI.1994, V.O. Becker Col., Col Becker 93642 (VOB). 2 ♂, Burity [Buriti], 30 miles NE of Cuyabá [Cuiabá], 2250 ft: 22–30.IX.1927, CL Collenette, at light, NHMUK010890560, 010890561 (NHMUK). 1 ♀, Mato Grosso, no additional data: XII.1929, Col. R. Spitz, Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890559 (NHMUK). Mato Grosso do Sul: 1 ♂, Rio Brilhante: 23–27.X.1970, V.O. Becker leg. (ISEZ). Minas Gerais: 1 ♂, Paraopeba: 27.II.1966, ex. col. Gagarin (DZUP). 1 ♀, Pirapora, 500 m: 29.X.1988, V. Becker leg., Col. Becker 59946, USNM-Mimal: 2339 (USNM). São Paulo: 1 ♂, Pirassununga, EMAS: 23– 27.XI.1949, Schubart col. (CEIOC). BOLIVIA: Santa Cruz: 2 ♂, 1 ♀: Ñuflo de Chávez, Esperanza: 1926–1929, B.M. 1934-167, NHMUK010890557, 010890558, 010890563 (NHMUK).</p><p>Diagnosis. Roelofa elyanae is an unmistakable, small Roelofa species, easily recognized by its size and coloration wherever it occurs. The dark khaki brown coloration, coupled with a purple hue ante- and medially, and brightly contrasting pale golden khaki postmedial and submarginal areas are unique to this species. This species is sympatric with one other small Roelofa species, R. narga and perhaps R. maera in parts of its range, but these two species have narrower wings and paler submarginal areas with distinct black spotting and more elongate apical streaks than in R. elyanae . Genitalia of both species, in both sexes, are unique among the genus in having elongate crisscrossing bunches of setae. The male genitalia have very fine gnathos projections that are not thick, robustly sclerotized, and distally flattened as in other Roelofa . The phallus is also unique in its stoutness and dense covering of spines. The dorsal juxtal processes are the thickest and stoutest of the genus and flank a balloon-like sclerotization between them that is not known in other Roelofa species. Female genitalia are oddly downwardly distended with a unique sack below the ostium bursae that apparently receives setae from the male.</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration light khaki brown, as for genus except: basal two thirds of antenna bipectinate, pectinations becoming longer then gradually shortening distally such that distal third of antenna serrate; labial palpus not as reduced as for remainder of genus, with terminal segment reaching outer vestiture of frons. Thorax: Coloration light brown with pink undertone, vestiture very compact. Legs: Coloration as for thorax albeit slightly darker, more uniform brown with less pink, vestiture thick, long. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 10.5–15.0 mm, avg.:13.3 mm, n = 10, wingspan: 23–30 mm. Triangular, short, stout, outer margin smooth and concave below apex, becoming more convex mesally; apex blunt but slightly falcate due to concavity below apex. Antemedial and medial ground color a layering of light brown and darker brown speckling, pinkish-brown scales faintly cover much of wing giving light hue; postmedially very light golden khaki with dark brown speckling from medial area also present submarginally and speckling may be so dense as to nearly completely cover this lighter area. Costa dark pinkish brown. Antemedial line present as faint brown outwardly kinked line, dark brown postmedial line mostly straight, preapical, angled toward costa at Rs 3, postmedial line barely connects to faint black streak of shading spanning from costa to Rs 3, reaching apex though this black streak may be vanishingly faint. Discal mark an irregular faint, light brown oval outwardly lined with dark brown. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum, but maculation darker or fainter overall, antemedial line absent, postmedial line may be more toothed due to interruptions with veins. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but antemedial line and discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, but postmedial line more diffuse than on hindwing dorsum. Abdomen: Stout, barely extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax, though compact vestiture appearing golden, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown tipped scale tufts. Genitalia: (Fig. 13) n = 4. Vinculum ovoid, wider dorsally. Diaphragm with four sets of organized setae, one pair of setal bunches denser, longer, originate from farther back in body cavity, left and right pairs crisscross each other mesally, longer set of setae originate from just below more heavily sclerotized region of valvae, below phallus exists a disorganized dense clump of deciduous setae. Uncus simple, triangular. Gnathos well-defined but weakly sclerotized, not robust, proximally rectangular converging ventrally, with elongate, dual mesal extensions that are weakly fused together basally, mesal extensions fine, uniform in width along entirety, not distally flattened or thickened, length of distal arms longer than that of proximal portion of gnathos, extending midway along length of uncus. Valvae narrow, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is greatly extended and modified as upturned, flattened, spined lobe-like protrusion which curves back over valvae, protrusions more heavily sclerotized than valvae; saccular margin of valvae notched, cone-like intrusion of valvae between baseo-mesal valvae protrusion and saccular notch. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus, dorsally juxta with pair of small (about one quarter length of phallus) membranous processes attached to diaphragm above phallus, processes covered in short thick setae, slightly sclerotized balloon-like membranous lobe present between paired processes attaching together with dorsal processes to the juxtal/diaphragmal complex. Phallus pistol-shaped, distally broadened with curving coecum angled perpendicularly below phallus, middle region of both lateral sides of phallus covered in short thick deciduous spines. Vesica bag-like. Female. Head: As for male. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male, but proximal segments darker brown. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 12–17 mm, avg. 15 mm, n = 8, wingspan: 22.5–32.0 mm. As for male, but broader overall with wider and darker khaki submarginal area, only very weakly concave below apex. Overall wings with purplish pink hue due to widespread covering of pale pink scales. Antemedial line more pronounced than in male, more distinctly outwardly convex. Postmedial line outwardly lined with pale purplish pink scales. Discal spot only barely defined. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum, but coloration more uniform overall, markings less well-defined, postmedial and submarginal areas concolorous with antemedial and medial area. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but antemedial line and discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but distal tip of abdomen with singular darker scaled tuft. Genitalia: (Fig. 19) n = 1. Segment VIII distended such that smoothly sclerotized, posteriorly curving dorsal tergite situated immediately above papillae anales with laterally extending region that flanks either side of papillae anales, lateral components lined with fewer than 10 elongate setae on either side, ventrally segment VIII extends anteriorly perpendicular to papillae anales (appearing to extend “downward” when viewing genitalia from ventral aspect) by narrow sclerotization which becomes thicker and more heavily sclerotized (lamella postvaginalis), lamella antevaginalis a simple band of sclerotization spanning lamella postvaginalis immediately parallel to it. Ostium bursae a flattened sack containing tangled mess of dense setae apparently derived from male (see male genitalia description which refers to dense clump of deciduous setae below phallus). Posteriorly to tangled setae (more proximal to lamella ante- and postvaginalis) two pairs of organized, crisscrossing elongate setae bunches which bifurcate on each side with longer portion of bifurcations reaching VIII tergite and shorter portion crossing each other and curving inward mesally below papillae anales. Apophyses anteriores vestigial or seemingly absent, apophyses posteriores weakly sclerotized, not extending to lower portion of VIII. Ductus bursae thin tube originating from left (when viewed ventrally) margin of ostium sack, ductus leads to simple balloon-like corpus bursae, corpus bursae smaller than ostium sack. Papillae anales somewhat irregularly shaped, projected outward.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 22) Roelofa elyanae is very widespread in central South America, primarily in dryer regions such as the Cerrado and similar habitats in eastern Bolivia. Based on a single record from Ceará, it seems this species is also present in forested enclaves within the Caatinga (xeric shrubland).</p><p>Biology. This species feeds on various species of Vochysiaceae A.St.-Hil., including Qualea parviflora Mart., Q. grandifolia Mart., Q. multiflora Mart., Vochysia sessilifolia Warm., V. rufa Mart., and Callisthene major Mart. (Diniz and Morais 1997, Diniz et al. 2001; St Laurent pers. obs. specimens reared by V. Becker in CPAC). Diniz and Morais (1997) stated that the larvae of this species “build their shelters with silk and large amounts of frass,” which is typical of Mimallonidae although we are uncertain of the appearance of the shelters or the larvae. In the works of Diniz and Morais (1997) and Diniz et al. (2001), Roelofa elyanae is identified as Lurama penia (Dognin, 1919), because at the time of these publications R. elyanae was not yet described and L. penia was evidently considered similar to the taxon that these authors were collecting and rearing. Furthermore, in the now destroyed Pearson collection formerly housed in the Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Pearson’s specimens of R. elyanae were identified as L. penia, and thus this was the source of the misidentifications (V. Becker pers. comm.).</p><p>Remarks. This species was originally described from eight males, with the type series restricted to the type locality in Maranhão, Brazil. Other material from Goiás and Distrito Federal was mentioned, though excluded from the type series. We examined all paratypes and these additional specimens, as well as material from several other Brazilian states and the first specimens reported from Bolivia, greatly expanding the known distribution of this species. The female and its genitalia are described and figured here for the first time.</p><p>Male and female genitalia of R. elyanae are among the most distinct in the genus, and the presence of bipectinate antennae in females (all other Roelofa females have finely serrate antennae) suggests a unique phylogenetic position within the Roelofa . This supposition was formally supported by St Laurent et al. (2020) who recovered R. elyanae as sister to all other sequenced Roelofa species. The genitalia of the female seem to be uniquely modified to receive setae from males, and both males and females share what are apparently homologous crisscrossing specialized bunches of setae. Similar crisscrossing setae are found in male R. narga and R. maera .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9146823162F64FF25031BFB79F943	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F91468231B2F60FF250303FD89FD2D.text	03F91468231B2F60FF250303FD89FD2D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa narga (Schaus 1905)	<div><p>Roelofa narga (Schaus, 1905)</p><p>(Figs 4, 6–8, 14, 15, 20)</p><p>Cicinnus narga Schaus, 1905: 329</p><p>Roelofa narga; Schaus 1928: 640, fig. 87c</p><p>Roelofa narga; Gaede 1931</p><p>Roelofa narga; Becker 1996</p><p>Roelofa narga; Herbin &amp; Mielke 2014</p><p>Roelofa narga; St Laurent et al. 2018</p><p>Roelofa narga; St Laurent and Kawahara 2019</p><p>Roelofa narga; St Laurent et al. 2020</p><p>Type material: HOLOTYPE ♀. SURINAME: 60 mi. up Maroni River / Collection Wm Schaus/ Perophora narga type Schaus/ USNM-Mimal: 1018/ Type No. 8899 U.S.N.M./ (USNM, examined) . No paratypes.</p><p>Additional material examined: (55 ♂, 4 ♀ total) COLOMBIA: 1 ♂: Eastern Colombia, Rio Negro [likely in Meta]: Fassl leg., Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, NHMUK010890555 (NHMUK). VENEZUELA: Bolivar: 1 ♂, Road El Dorado to Santa Elena km 120, 5°58’12”N 61°24’14”W, 1310 m: 19.XII.1987, P. Bleuzen leg., BC-Her2807 (CDH). GUYANA: 1 ♂, Tumatumari, Rio Potaro (CUIC). SURINAME: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Aroewarwa Creek, Marowym Valley: IV.1905 (1 ♂), VI.1905 (1 ♀), S.M. Klages [leg.], Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890546, 010890547 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, Moengo, Boven Cottica River (CUIC). 1 ♂, Kabo [Creek]: 18–19.IX.1979 (RMNH). 1 ♂, Sipalawini District, Thibiti area, Kabo Creek: 8.V.1989, partly swampy, primary forest on hilly slopes ca. 2 k from river, J. Beerlink leg. (RMNH). FRENCH GUIANA: 1 ♀, RN2 PK46: 11.VIII.1985, J. Haxaire leg. (CDH). 1 ♀, Piste Paul Isnard, 5°13’07.32”N 53°57’39.88”W, 116 m: 7.X.2015, D. Herbin, M.Laguerre leg. (CDH). 2 ♂, Grand Santi, 4°17’5.1”N 54°21’6.7”W: 14–18.X.2017, J. Barbut leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Route Sainte Elie Km18, 5°17.874’N, 53°09.018’W: 1.III.2006, D. Herbin, M.Laguerre leg., BC-Her2763 (CDH). 1 ♂, Piste Belizon, PK7, 4°19’28.24’’, 52°20’7.64’’W, 67 m: 10.X.2015, D. Herbin and M. Laguerre leg. (CDH). 3 ♂, Piste de Nancibo, Km 30: 11.IX.1990, F. Bénéluz leg. BMNH(E) 2008-107, NHMUK010587988, 010587991 (NHMUK). 5 ♂, Moy- en Oyapock, Camopi, 100 m: 21.II.1990, 25.II.1990, 27.II.1990 (4 ♂), 15.II.1991 (1 ♂) BMNH(E) 2008-107, NHMUK010587987, 010588079, 010587993, 010587985, 010587995 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, Route Nationale 2, km 44: 6.IX.1991, F. Bénéluz, BMNH(E) 2008-107, NHMUK010587963 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, St Jean du Maroni: E. Le Moult [leg.], Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890548 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, Roura, Coralie, Aub. Orpailleurs, 6 m: 28.VII.2014, J.B. Heppner leg. (MGCL). 1 ♂, Piste de Kaw Km32, 3–5.III.2006, D. Herbin, M.Laguerre leg., BC-Her2760 (CDH) 1 ♂, Piste de Kaw Km36, 24.III.1996, M. Laguerre leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Kaw, Camp Amazone, Kaw Mtn., 307 m: 1–5.III.2016, J.B. Heppner leg. (MGCL). 1 ♂, vic. of Amazone Nature Lodge, 30 km SE Roura on Kaw Rd., 300 m: 4–15.I.2016, J. Eger, R. Morris, J. Wappes leg. (MGCL). 1 ♂, Nouveau Chantier: Collection Le Moult, Dognin Collection, USNM-Mimal: 1293 (USNM). 1 ♂, Kaw, Patawa Camp, Kaw Mtn., 190 m: 16– 20.I.2013, J.B. Heppner leg. (MGCL). 1 ♂, Cayenne Dept, Roura, 40 km E. R. de Patawa: 4.VIII.1999, at MV light, W.H. Russell leg., 8457, UF FLMNH MGCL 1032604, St Laurent dissection: 11-30-18:1 (MGCL). 1 ♂, Kaw Mtns, 60 mi S Cayenne – Relais de Patawa hotel, 950 ft: 10–13.X.1999, Jeffrey Smith leg. (BME). 1 ♂, 36 km SE Roura, Camp Patawa: 29–30.XI.2008, Lukasz Przybylowicz leg. (ISEZ). BRAZIL: Amazonas: 1 ♂, Manaus: IX.1906, M. de Mathan leg., Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890553 (NHMUK). 4 ♂, 1 ♀, Reserva Ducke, km 26, Manaus-Itacoatiara Highway: E.G., I. &amp; E.A. Munroe (2 ♂, CUIC); 14.IV.1972, St Laurent dissection: 12-4-18:1 (1 ♀), 17.V.1972 (1 ♂), 18.V.1972 (1 ♂) (2 ♂, 1 ♀ CNC). Pará: 1 ♂, “Upper Amazon:” A.M. Moss [leg.], Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890552 (NHMUK). 3 ♂, no additional locality data:A.M. Moss [leg.], Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890549–010890551 (NHMUK). Maranhão: 2 ♂, Feira Nova do Maranhão, Re- tiro, 07°00’31’’S, 46°26’41’’W, 480 m: 16–17.II.2013, C. Mielke leg. (1 ♂, CGCM); 20–27.I.2012, H. Thöny leg. (1 ♂, MWM). Rondônia: 1 ♂, Caucaulandia: 1–5.IX.1997, Furtado &amp; Moser leg. (CLAM). PERU: 1 ♂, Yahuas Terr. [Yaguas territory, specific location in NE Peru unknown]: Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, NHMUK010890554 (NHMUK). Madre de Dios: 1 ♂, 55 km 254° [WSW] from Puerto Maldonado, 12°44.5’S, 69°38.8’W, 280 m: 5.XII.2010, Viktor &amp; Svetlana Sinjaev(a) leg., coll. Dr. Ronald Brechlin (MWM). 1 ♂, Salvacion, Rio Alto, Manu Park, 400 m: X–XI.1998, via R. Marx, ex. coll. Schintlmeister (MWM). 2 ♂, Salvacion, Rio Alto de Madre de Dios, Manu – Park, ca. 500 m: XII.1996, local people leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032581, 1032640, St Laurent dissection: 12-4-18:3 (MGCL). Huánuco: 1 ♂, Yuyapichis, ACP Panguana, 9°36’S, 74°56’W, 220 m: VIII.2013, H. Thöny leg. (MWM). Junín: 1 ♂, Satipo, District Pampa Hermosa, Santa Ana, Membrillo, 11°22’01.38”S, 74°44’48.60”W, 1053 m: 15.X.2017, D. Herbin leg. (CDH). BOLIVIA: Beni: 2 ♂, 1km [before] Yucumo, 15°10’19”S 67°02’00”W, 275 m: 18.VII.1994 [BC-Her2764], 19.VII.1994 [BC-Her2758], D.Herbin, J.Haxaire leg. (CDH). Santa Cruz: 1 ♂, Ñuflo de Chavez, [La] Esperanza, 1926–1929, B.M. 1934-167, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402323 (NHMUK). La Paz: 1 ♂, Río Songo [recte Río Zongo], 750 m: Fassl leg., genitalia prep. NHRS-TOBI 000001955 (NHRS).</p><p>Literature records: ECUADOR: Orellana: 1 ♂, Yasuní, 350 m: 22.II.1999, G. Onore [leg.] (Piñas 1998).</p><p>Diagnosis. Unlike all Roelofa (except see R. maera below), R. narga bears distinct black spots at vein intersections in the lighter submarginal area along the outer margin of the postmedial line. The discal region of R. narga (and R. maera) does not have a singular discal spot as in the other Roelofa species, but instead this region of the wing is covered in a pale-yellow mosaic splotch that variously fills the interveinal regions of the discal cell between CuA 1 and CuA 2 proximal to the discal cell. These yellow splotches surround a white comma-shaped discal mark outlined by darker scales. Male genitalia are recognized by the well-sclerotized, apically spined baseo-mesal valvae lobes. These lobes are not unlike those of R. maricia and R. elyanae, but in those species the lobes are broader than in R. narga . Furthermore, R. narga and R. maera are the only Roelofa species with basally widened gnathos arms. Female genitalia are unlike those of other Roelofa species in the presence of a well-defined sclerotized region (ostium bursae) below the lamella antevaginalis. The setae filled pouch observed in R. elyanae is absent, but apparent male-derived setae are present in a different pouch which circumscribes the ventrum of the intersegmental region between segments VIII and IX.</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration reddish salmon-brown, structure as for genus; antenna coloration as for genus, about basal half of antenna bipectinate, pectinations becoming longer then dramatically shortening near halfway point along antenna, after which antenna finely serrate appearing nearly filiform. Thorax: Coloration deep reddish salmon brown with purplish pink undertone. Legs: Coloration as for thorax though tibia and tarsus lighter. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 12–15 mm, avg.: 12.8 mm, n = 15, wingspan: 24–29 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth and concave below apex, becoming more convex mesally; apex falcate. Antemedial and medial ground color deep salmon pink, appearing purple-brown in life, overall lightly speckled with dark brown petiolate scales; postmedially very light khaki, particularly contrasting against darker remainder of wing, veins interrupted by small black spots submarginally along outer margin of postmedial line. Costal coloration only slightly darker than remainder of wing. Antemedial line essentially absent, dark brown postmedial line well-defined, widest along anal margin, becoming finer as it approaches apex, line preapical, angled toward costa at Rs 3, although this angle largely unapparent due to suffusion with dark streak of shading spanning from costa to Rs 3, reaching apex. Discal mark comma shaped, centrally off-white but outlined with dark brown. Interveinular region of discal cell suffused with pale yellow, yellow suffusion also present proximal to anal margin of discal cell between CuA 1 and CuA 3. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, although coloration appearing more washed out, submarginal black spots at vein intersections much reduced, almost absent in some specimens. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, discal spot and discal yellow patch absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: Extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, compact, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown tipped scale tufts that heavily contrast against remainder of abdomen. Genitalia: (Figs 14, 15) n = 5. Vinculum ovoid. Diaphragm with four sets of organized setae, one pair of setal bunches denser, longer, originate from farther back in body cavity, left and right pairs crisscross each other mesally, longer set of setae are more permanent, originate from just below more heavily sclerotized region of valvae, below phallus exists a dense clump of deciduous setae. Uncus simple, triangular, apically narrowed but blunt. Gnathos robust, proximally rectangular, with broad, dual mesal extensions that are fused together basally, mesal extensions broadest basally, narrowing for much of length, but becoming broadened, flattened, truncated at termini, length of distal arms longer than that of proximal portion of gnathos, but not longer than mid-uncus length. Valvae narrowed distally, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is extended, well-sclerotized, and modified as upturned apically spined lobe-like protrusion which curve back over valvae, basal portion of these protrusions covered in setae, protrusions more heavily sclerotized than valvae; base of valvae notched on inner margin. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus, dorsally juxta with small upwardly curved sclerotized process, additional pair of thin membranous processes (each about half length of phallus) attach to diaphragm and do not attach well to phallus (thus not excised with phallus in genitalia preparations as in other Roelofa species). Phallus simple, pistol-shaped with curving coecum angled perpendicularly below phallus, phallus distally with variable number of spines on left side (when viewed from dorsal aspect) (spines occasionally absent, apparently due to their being deciduous). Dorsal base of phallus with minute sclerotization attachment point. Vesica tubular, becoming narrowed distally. Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform; labial palpus slightly thinner overall, but still not extending beyond frons. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 15–17 mm, avg: 16 mm, n = 2, wingspan: 31.0–34.5 mm. As for male, but broader overall, apex less falcate. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum, but coloration paler overall. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but distal tip of abdomen with singular darker scaled tuft. Genitalia: (Fig. 20) n = 1. Segment VIII weakly distended such that smoothly sclerotized, slightly posteriorly projected dorsal tergite situated immediately above papillae anales with laterally extending region that flank either side of papillae anales, lateral components irregularly edged, lined with fewer than 10 elongate setae on either side, ventrally segment VIII extends anteriorly perpendicular to papillae anales (appearing to extend “downward” when viewing genitalia from ventral aspect) by narrow sclerotization which becomes thicker and more heavily sclerotized (lamella postvaginalis), lamella antevaginalis a simple arching band of sclerotization spanning lamella postvaginalis immediately parallel to and slightly wider than it. Ostium bursae as small sclerotized region, posterior to sclerotized region of ostium, occupying membranous intersegmental region between VIII and IX is a narrow pouch that nearly encircles the genitalia, pouch filled with tangled mess of setae, apparently derived from male. Posteriorly to tangled setae two pairs of organized, horse-tail crisscrossing elongate setae bunches present which curve inward mesally crossing over below papillae anales. Apophyses anteriores vestigial or apparently absent, apophyses posteriores weakly sclerotized, not extending to lower portion of VIII, termini of apophyses anteriores less well-sclerotized and irregular. Ductus bursae thin tube leading to simple bag-like corpus bursae (not well-preserved in single available dissection). Papillae anales somewhat irregularly shaped, projected outward.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 22) Roelofa narga is a widespread species in northern South America, found throughout the Amazon rainforest at low elevations, and at or below 500 m along the eastern slopes of the Andes. Records exist from Colombia, Venezuela, Surinam, Guyana, French Guiana, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil. Records from the northern Cerrado (Maranhão) apparently belong to this species (see remarks).</p><p>Remarks. Despite being such a widespread species, R. narga has little geographic variation in external or genital morphology. Records from the periphery, outside the more typical Amazonian rainforest, namely Maranhão, Brazil and Santa Cruz, Bolivia show some minor differences from Amazonian populations, particularly so in the single examined specimen from Santa Cruz. This specimen has narrower, more elongated wings than any other R. narga (or R. maera) specimens, very pale coloration and oddly tipped baseo-mesal valvae projections. However, valvae and phallic structure are consistent with Amazonian R. narga and thus this unusual specimen is treated here as R. narga and not R. maera, nor a new species. Additional material from this locality and nearby, however, would certainly be of interest. Little phylogenetic structure was found in 12 COI barcodes from across the distribution of this species (see Fig. 1).</p><p>Schaus (1905) described this species from an unstated number of specimens, but explicitly referred to a “type” which we located in the USNM with a corresponding catalogue number. Therefore, we consider this the holotype. Schaus did not mention the sex, but the holotype is female. The male was later described and figured in Schaus (1928), though this description was based on R. maera as well. Here we present the genitalia of both sexes and figures of the adult female for the first time.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F91468231B2F60FF250303FD89FD2D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F91468231F2F63FF2506E9FB8BFAE4.text	03F91468231F2F63FF2506E9FB8BFAE4.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa maera (Schaus 1913) St Laurent & Herbin & Kawahara 2020	<div><p>Roelofa maera (Schaus, 1913), stat. rev.</p><p>(Figs 9–12, 16–18, 21)</p><p>Cicinnus maera Schaus, 1913: 5</p><p>Roelofa narga; Schaus 1928 (in part, synonymized with R. narga)</p><p>Roelofa maera; Becker 1996 (as synonym of R. narga)</p><p>Roelofa maera; St Laurent and Kawahara 2019 (as synonym of R. narga)</p><p>Type material: LECTOTYPE ♂. BRAZIL: Santa Catarina: Joinville, Brazil/ Collection W. Schaus / n 1051/ USNM-Mimal: 1019/ Cicinnus maera type Schaus/ Type No. 18647 U.S.N.M./ LECTOTYPE Roelofa maera designated by St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara (USNM, examined) .</p><p>Additional material examined: (33 ♂, 2 ♀ total) BRAZIL: Bahia: 1 ♂, Mun. Marau, Fazenda Agua Boa, 14°13’S, 39°29’W, 150 m: 15–22.XI.2010, Th. Greifenstein leg. (MWM). Minas Gerais: 2 ♂, Poté, 500 m: 25.I.1997, H. Thöny leg. (MWM). Espírito Santo: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Santa Leopoldina, Biriricas, ca. 700 m: 20.III–20.IV.1997, genitalia prep. 35.541 (1 ♀), I.1998, genitalia prep. 35.543 (1 ♂), H. Thöny leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Santa Leopoldina, Boque[i]rão, ca. 600 m: VI.1997, Hubert Thöny leg., genitalia prep. 35.542 (MWM). 13 ♂, 1 ♀: Santa Leopoldina, Dorf Tirol, 40°50’W, 24°75’S [coordinates apparently incorrect], 700 m: 10–25.XI.1996 (3 ♂, 1 ♀), 8-20.XII.1996 (7 ♂), 22-31.X.1996 (1 ♂), 15.V.1997 (1 ♂), VI.1998 (1 ♂), H. Thöny leg. (MWM). Rio de Janeiro: 1 ♂, Petrópolis: 14.XI.1960, Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.469 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Independência, Petrópolis: 26.X.1930, Coll. Principe Gagarin Rio, Coll. D. D’Almeida, 19.002, DZ 25.470 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Barreira, Teresópolis: 20.XI.1955, ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.471 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Barreira, Teresópolis, 400 m: 18–26.X.1957, Pearson H. &amp; G., HRP 1872, UNSM-Mimal: 2423, St Laurent dissection: 11-30-18:2 (USNM). 3 ♂, Boca do Mato, Cachoeira de Macacu: 11–20.X.1996, Tangerini leg. (MWM). São Paulo: 1 ♂, Boracéia, Salesópolis: 16.XII.1941, D’Almeida leg., Coll. D’Almeida, 19.001, DZ 25.472 (DZUP). Paraná: 1 ♂, Tibagi, Guartelá, 24°33’59”S 50°15’26”W, 975 m: 18.I.2012, C. Mielke leg., CDH 2.589, genitalia prep. H1383 (CDH). Santa Catarina: 1 ♂, Joinville (ZSM). 1 ♂, Blumenau, H.X.29 [X.1929?], “III”, E. Wenzel S. G. (MNHU). 1 ♂, No specific data, “60” (MNHU). No locality data: 3 ♂, “814”, Coll. Weymer (MNHU).</p><p>Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from all other Roelofa, except R. narga, by the same characters given in the diagnosis of R. narga . Differentiation of R. narga and R. maera is primarily in the genitalia characters, but externally R. maera tends to have broader submarginal areas, broader wings, and lighter salmon pink coloration (appearing more faded than R. narga) overall. The pale-yellow suffusion near the discal cell usually also bleeds into the angle between M 3 and CuA 1, which very rarely occurs in R. narga, and when it does, this bleeding is to a much lesser degree than in R. maera . In the male genitalia, the gnathos arms are finer and longer in R. maera and the valvae are distinctly broader. Female genitalia are similar to those of R. narga, but the VIII tergite is more mesally projected in R. maera, and the ostium bursae is not sclerotized as a differentiated plate below the lamella antevaginalis.</p><p>Description. Male. Head: As for R. narga . Thorax: As for R. narga . Legs: As for R. narga . Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 16–17 mm, avg. 26.5 mm, n = 2, wingspan: ~35 mm. As for R. narga but: wing slightly broader, with broader submarginal area (broadness of wing more consistent than that of submarginal area); coloration lighter and more uniformly pink overall. Yellow suffusion present within and proximal to discal cell between CuA 1 and CuA 3 as in R. narga, and also regularly between M 3 and CuA 1. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, thus like in R. narga but with differences in submarginal width as for forewing dorsum in R. maera . Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, discal spot and discal yellow patch absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for R. narga but coloration lighter pink. Genitalia: (Figs 16–18) n = 4. As for R. narga but basal portion of gnathos more distended, gnathos arms finer, narrower, more elongate, reaching beyond halfway length of uncus; baseo-mesal valvae projections more erect and slightly broader; valvae broader, valvae about 1.5x wider than those of R. narga . Phallus thicker than in R. narga .</p><p>Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: ~18 mm, n = 1, wingspan: ~36 mm. As for male, but broader overall, apex less falcate. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum, but coloration paler overall. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but distal tip of abdomen with singular darker scaled tuft. Genitalia: (Fig. 21) n = 1. [Note, only examined R. maera genitalia preparation flattened and slide mounted, so comparison to R. narga not precise] As for R. narga but VIII tergite more mesally accentuated, region below (ostium bursae) lamella antevaginalis less sclerotized, not differentiated from ductus bursae; apophyses anteriores more robust, more heavily sclerotized. No horse-tail like setae or tangled mass of setae observed in dissection.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 22) Restricted to the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, apparently very limited distribution inland. Records for R. maera exist from Bahia, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Paraná, and Santa Catarina.</p><p>Remarks. Schaus (1913) described R. maera from an unstated number of specimens. The single specimen labeled as the type in the USNM is here designated as the lectotype. At the time of its description, R. maera was not compared to the obviously very similar R. narga that Schaus had described eight years prior (Schaus 1905). After the original description, R. maera was not mentioned in the literature until it was synonymized with R. narga in 1928 by Schaus. Roelofa maera was maintained in synonymy with R. narga until the present work. Based on morphological distinctness, albeit slight, we revalidate this taxon and treat it as a full species. Species pairs between the Amazon and the Brazilian Atlantic Forest are quite common in Mimallonidae, and often the morphological distinction between them is more obvious than in the case of R. narga and R. maera (St Laurent and Dombroskie 2015, 2016, St Laurent et al. 2017).</p><p>Although not included in the phylogenomic study of St Laurent et al. (2020), this species is morphologically very similar to R. narga, and is therefore likely to be its closest relative within Roelofa .</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F91468231F2F63FF2506E9FB8BFAE4	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F91468231C2F7BFF2501A6FAC8FE5D.text	03F91468231C2F7BFF2501A6FAC8FE5D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa olivia (Schaus 1896)	<div><p>Roelofa olivia (Schaus, 1896)</p><p>(Figs 23–27, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 40)</p><p>Perophora olivia Schaus, 1896: 52</p><p>Perophora olivia; Dognin 1922</p><p>Roelofa olivia; Schaus 1928, fig. 87c</p><p>Roelofa olivia; Gaede 1931</p><p>Roelofa olivia; Fletcher and Nye 1982</p><p>Roelofa olivia; Becker 1996</p><p>Roelofa olivia; St Laurent and Kawahara 2019</p><p>Roelofa olivia; St Laurent et al. 2020</p><p>Type material: LECTOTYPE ♂. COLOMBIA: Colombia S America/ Collection Wm Schaus / Perophora olivia type Schaus/ USNM-Mimal: 1131/ Type No. 12560 U.S.N.M./ LECTOYPE Perophora olivia designated by St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara/ (USNM, examined) .</p><p>Additional material examined: (121 ♂, 13 ♀ total) COLOMBIA: Cundinamarca: 4 ♂, Chicaque Natu- ral Park, 4°36’21.15′ ′ N, 74°18’19.94′ ′ W, 2610 m: 7.V.2019, D. Herbin leg. (CDH). 2 ♂, 1 ♀, Parc Chicaque, 4°36’28.5′′ N 74°18’16.37′′ W, 2556 m: 2.V.2019, D. Herbin leg. BC-Her5247 (♂) (CDH). 2 ♂, 1 ♀, Bogotá, Pueblo Guasca (1 ♂, CUIC); collection Frank Johnson, USNM-Mimal: 1308, 1313 (1 ♂, 1 ♀, USNM). 3 ♂, Bogotá, Rothschild Bequest 1939-1, NHMUK010890533– 010890535 (NHMUK). 1 ♂, Bogotá: 4.VI.1918, Dognin Col- lection, USNM-Mimal: 2430 (USNM). 1 ♂, 5 ♀: Guaxa nr. Bogata [Bogotá]: V.1921, A Maria, Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, NHMUK010606778, 010890536–010890541, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402328 [♀] (NHMUK). 1 ♂, 3 ♀, Paramos de Guasca, Bogotá: VII.1919, Dognin Collection, USNM-Mimal: 1306, 1307, 1309, 1310 (USNM). 1 ♂, Colombia, no other data (CUIC). 1 ♂, Colombia, other data illegible, Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925- 157, NHMUK010890537–010890538 (NHMUK). Boyaca: 2 ♂, Arcabuco, Vereda Rupavita, 5°44’28.73’’N, 73°24’01.73’’W, 2984 m: 3.V.2019, D. Herbin leg. (CDH). 3 ♂, Villa de Leiva [recte Villa de Leyva], 17.VI.1996, 2500 m, R. Reitmaier leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Santander, road Duitama-Charala, 5°58’13’’N, 73°10’07’’W, 2925 m: 15–17.III.2016, St Laurent dissection: 12-4-18:2 (MGCL). Valle del Cauca: 1 ♀, 30 km E from Buenaventura, 22–30.VI.1996, 200 m [elevation incorrect, locality questionable and not shown in map Fig. 43], R. Reitmaier leg. (MWM). Risaralda: 2 ♂, Termales de San Vicente, 04°51’18’’N, 75°31’46’’W, 2560 m: 18–21.I.2015, M. Márquez &amp; J. Machado leg., St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:1 [ex. A. Kozlov] (MGCL). No additional data: 1 ♂, Coll. Staudinger, 796 (MNHU). ECUADOR: Morona-Santiago: 1 ♂, Route Gualaceo-Mendez, km 54, 2300 m: 30.VII.1990, D. Herbin, J. Haxaire leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Route Gualaceo-Mendez, km 58, 2300 m: 9.VIII.1988, D. Herbin, J. Haxaire leg. (CDH). 3 ♂, 9 km W Plan de Milagro to Gualaceo, 3°00’04’’S,78°30’49’’W, 2375 m: 15.II.2012 (2 ♂), 26.I.2012 (1 ♂), R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 3 ♂, 30 km Road Plan de Milagro to Gualaceo, 3°00’21’’S, 78°38’28’’W, 2970 m: 1– 2.II.2012, R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 4 ♂, 62 km road Rio Bamba-Macas, 2°12’40’’S, 78°23’51’’W, 2700 m: 27.III.2012, R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 13 ♂, 34 km Road Plan de Milagro to Gualaceo, 3°00’13’’S, 78°38’46’’W, 3176 m: 19.XI.2011 (2 ♂), 30.I.2012 (10 ♂), 17.II.2012 (1 ♂), R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 5 ♂, 1 ♀, 34 km Road Plan de Milagro to Gualaceo, 3°01’24’’S, 78°35’6’’W, 2157 m: 21.XI.2011 (5 ♂), 28.I.2012, genitalia prep. 35.538 (1 ♀), R. Brechlin &amp; V. Sini- aev leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Road Gualaceo-Plan de Milagro, 3°0’21’’S, 78°29’53’’ W, 2033 m: 22.XI.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). 2 ♂, Road Gualaceo-Plan de Milagro, 3°0’42’’S, 78°36’19’’W, 2601 m: 17.XI.2011, 22.XI.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Mendez, 2°44’37’’ S, 78°18’27’’ W, 480 m: 28.XI.2011, V. Siniaev leg., coll. Dr. Ronald Brechlin [this locality is highly questionable given its elevation, not shown in Fig. 43] (MWM). Loja: 2 ♂, Road Loja-Zamora, 3°59’19’’S, 79°08’39’’W, 2800 m: 27.II.2012, R. Brechlin &amp; V. Sini- aev leg. (MWM). 3 ♂, Road Loja-Zamora, 3°58’45’’S, 79°08’28’’W, 2700 m: 22.II.2012, R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Road Loja-Zamora, 3°58’45’’S, 79°08’28’’W, 2714 m: 25.XI.2012, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). 2 ♂, 15 km E Loja to Zamora, 3°58’45’’S, 79°08’28’’W, 2700 m: 1.III.2011, 25.XI.2012, H. Kaech &amp; R. Brechlin leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, ca. 10 km S Saraguro, Monte del Cerro Fierrurco Sector de Puzón, 3°41’32’’S, 79°17’42’’W, 3140 m: 28.II.2011, H. Kaech &amp; R. Brechlin leg. (MWM). Napo/Cotopaxi: 2 ♂, Oriente, Salcedo/ Napo, Km 58, 3100 m: 16.IV.1991, BMNH(E)2008-107, NHMUK010588510, NHMUK010588526 (NHMUK). Napo: 1 ♂, Route Cosanga-Tena, km 7, 2350 m: 19–20.VII.1990, D.Herbin, J.Haxaire leg., genitalia prep. H1137 (CDH). 14 ♂, Papallacta, Rio San Pedro, 0°22’56’’S, 78°7’27’’W, 3010 m: 4.XI.2011 (6 ♂), 18.I.2012 (2 ♂), 22.III.2012 (6 ♂), R. Brechlin &amp; V. Siniaev leg. (MWM). 12 ♂, Rio Papallacta, Cuyuja, 0°25’17’’S, 78°1’19’’W, 2525 m: 6.XI.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg., genitalia prep. 35.545 (MWM). 1 ♂, Cordillera Guacamayos, 0°37’15’’S, 77°49’28’’W, 2181 m: 11.XI.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). Pichincha: 1 ♂, Quito- Nanegalito, 37 km, 0°01’3’’N, 78°36’55’’W, 2094 m: V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Guagua Pichin- cha, 0°06’20’’N, 78°34’19’’W, 3676 m: 21.X.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg. (MWM). 3 ♂, Tandayapa, Bel- lavista Lodge, IX.2012, R. Beck leg., MWM genitalia prep. 35.546, St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:2 (2 ♂ MWM, 1 ♂ MGCL). Carchi: 2 ♂, El Angel Ecol. Reserve, 0°46’14’’N, 78°03’27’’W, 2785 m: 9–11.XI.2012, Victor Sin- yaev leg., expedition Ron Brechlin (MWM). 5 ♂, El Angel Ecol. Reserve, road Tulcan-El Chical, 0°48’46’’N, 78°00’40’’W, 3300 m: 14.XI.2012, Victor Sinyaev leg., Expedition Ron Brechlin (MWM). 1 ♂, 70 km Road Tul- can-El Chical, 0°50’29’’N, 78°03’25’’W, 2440 m: 22.XI.2012, Sinyaev &amp; Romanov leg., expedition Ron Brechlin (MWM). El Oro: 1 ♂, Road Piñas-Saracay, 3°38’57’’S, 79°45’17’’W, 850 m: 5.XII.2012, Sinyaev &amp; Romanov leg., expedition Ron Brechlin, genitalia prep. 35.547 (MWM). Azuay: 1 ♂, 15 km E Gualaceo to Mendez, 2°56’9’’S, 78°42’45’’W, 2920 m: 27.II.2011, H. Kaech &amp; R. Brechlin leg. (MWM). PERU: Amazonas: 2 ♂, Streck Bagua- Chica-Nazareth, 700–1100 m [elevation likely inaccurate]: X–XII.1998, R. Marx leg. (SMFL). Piura: 2 ♂: Cordil- lera de Guamani (W), Huancabamba prov., 30 km W Huancabamba, 5°20’S, 79°31’W, [WGS 84], 3250 m: I.2012, Arturo, Dr. Ronald Brechlin leg. (MWM). Junin: 1 ♂, 12 km Satipo, 11°16.1’S, 74°38.5’W, 660 m [the coordinates do not agree with the designation of 12 km from Satipo, and elevation is likely too low to be accurate for this species, this data point is not shown in Fig. 43]: 24.XII.2010, V. &amp; S. Sinjaev(a) leg., coll. Dr. Ronald Brechlin, genitalia prep. 35.548 (MWM). Cusco: 1 ♂, 12 km SW Marcapata, 13°35.4’S, 70°57.9’W, 2850 m: 28–30.XI.2010, V. &amp; S. Sinjaev(a) leg., coll. Dr. Ronald Brechlin, genitalia prep. 35.549 (MWM). No country data: 1 ♂, “ Perophora apicistriga ‡ Weym. (Weym.) Col. ”, “ olivia Schaus ”, 59 (MNHU).</p><p>Literature records: ECUADOR: Tungurahua: 1 ♀, Baños-Pelotero, 2800 m: 2.I.1998, G. Onore [leg.] (Pi- ñas 2004). Loja: 1 ♂, Sagraguro-Cerro Torre, 3500 m: 29.XII.1997, G. Onore [leg.] (Piñas 2004).</p><p>Diagnosis. This species distinguished by the large size, such that it is the largest in the genus, and is in fact one of the largest of the Mimallonidae considering the size of the female. The dark brown antemedial and medial areas contrast heavily against the pale pink-tan postmedial and submarginal areas and the yellowish brown discal spot. The male genitalia are very robust structures, with heavily sclerotized, rectangular gnathos arms and fingerlike inner mesal projections of the valvae. The phallus is devoid of spines, which are present in most other Roelofa . Roelofa olivia is an Andean species found at some of the highest elevations reported for Mimallonidae and can be confused with no other species where it is found. The most similar species, R. maricia, is found in southeastern Brazil, has narrower wings, acuter forewing apices, is overall lighter tan in color, and displays unique, circular hyaline discal spots. The male genitalia of R. maricia are less robust overall, with narrower gnathos arms and spinier lobe-like, rather than smooth and fingerlike, inner mesal valvae projections. Female genitalia are different as well, in R. olivia the posterior margin of the VIII tergite is not mesally projected, but rather flat and smooth. Ventrally the VIII segment is mostly membranous with only minor sclerotization on either side of the ostium bursae, this same region is well-sclerotized in R. maricia .</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration rich dark brown, structure as for genus; antenna coloration as for genus, basal half of antenna bipectinate, pectinations becoming longer then dramatically shortening near halfway point along antenna, after which antenna finely serrate appearing nearly filiform. Thorax: Coloration rich deep chestnut brown to darker chocolate brown, appearing hoary due to presence of lighter brown or pinkish gray scales. Legs: Coloration as for thorax, vestiture thick, long. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 19.5–26.0 mm, avg.: 22.6 mm, n = 9, wingspan: 38.5–44.0 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth and concave below apex; apex falcate. Antemedial and medial ground color a layering of light brown scales with dark brown scales speckling the wing surface, these areas overlaid with thin, hair-like light brown scales; postmedially very light cream darkening to pale khaki submarginally. Costa appearing lighter than remainder of wing due to pink scales. Antemedial line essentially absent, dark postmedial line consists of pair of dark brown preapical lines, faintly angled toward costa at Rs 3, postmedial line connects to elongate black streak of shading spanning from costa to Rs 3, reaching apex. Discal mark an ovoid yellow splotch which may be bisected by dark brown bar, actual width of splotch variable. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, discal spot less well-defined. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, but postmedial line may be faded and/or interrupted by veins. Abdomen: Robust, extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, long, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown tipped scale tufts, tufts may be as much as one third abdomen length. Genitalia: (Figs 36, 37) n = 9. Vinculum ovoid, ventrally projected as small spine, diaphragm with dense region of elongated, partially deciduous setae. Uncus simple, triangular, apically narrowed. Gnathos robust, proximally ovoid, with broad, dual mesal extensions that are fused together basally, mesal extensions rectangular, may be somewhat splayed and flattened distally, length of distal arms equal to or longer than that of proximal portion of gnathos. Valvae narrow, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is extended and modified as upturned fingerlike protrusion which meet above phallus, protrusions more heavily sclerotized than valvae and may be obfuscated by diaphragmal setae; base of valvae notched on inner margin. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus, dorsally juxta with pair of very small (less than one eighth length of phallus) membranous processes attached to diaphragm. Phallus simple, pistol-shaped with curving coecum which may be angled perpendicularly below phallus or slightly backward from it, phallus distally smooth, without spines except for narrow strip which may be covered in fine, deciduous spines on both lateral sides (usually nearly entirely lost in most specimens). Vesica bag-like. Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 25.0–29.5 mm, avg.: 26.4 mm, n = 7, wingspan: 49–50 mm. As for male, but broader overall with wider submarginal area, only very weakly concave below apex. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum but maculation more diffuse, postmedial line particularly diffuse such that appearing as singular line band rather than parallel pair of lines. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts. Genitalia: (Fig. 40) n = 2. Robust; VIII a thickly sclerotized ring, continuous around circumference of segment except for ventrally at juncture with ostium bursae and ductus bursae, no obvious lamella antevaginalis or lamella postvaginalis present due to membranous break in the sternal region, dorsally VIII mesally notched along anterior margin, posterior margin smooth. Apophyses anteriores vestigial, reduced to small knobs, apophyses posteriores very thickly sclerotized, robust, irregular in width along length, thickest mesally, knob-like distally. Membranous region between VIII and papillae anales covered in short, thick setae. Ductus bursae thick, tubular, corpus bursae bag-like, circular. Papillae anales large, well-sclerotized, with setae longer than overall length of papillae anales.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 43) Roelofa olivia is an Andean species, encountered in Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Collecting bias in Ecuador results in most of the records being from this country. This species is likely more widely distributed in Colombia and Peru than our records indicate. Records exist from up to 3676 m in elevation, though most are from 2000–3000 m. Records from significantly lower elevations (200 m at Valle del Cauca, Colombia; 480 m at Mendez, Morona-Santiago, Ecuador; 660 m in Junín, Peru) are likely erroneous, which is particularly evident due to other conflicting information about some of these localities such as mismatch between given coordinates and locality designations (see material examined for specific notes about these records). The record from a moderate elevation of 850 m in El Oro, Ecuador appears to be reliable, however.</p><p>Biology. Dognin (1922) provided some anecdotal information pertaining to the life history of R. olivia . He reported that larvae of this species were found living in a colonial nest consisting of silken tunnels. Construction of silken tunnels has not been observed anywhere else in Mimallonidae . It is unclear whether later instar R. olivia larvae build individual cases as do all known Mimallonidae larvae (e.g. Stehr 1987, Lemaire and Minet 1998). Gregarious behavior is only otherwise known in Psychocampa Grote and Robinson, 1867, from the common P. “ callipius ” (formally treated as belonging to Cicinnus Blanchard, 1852, specific identity not yet confirmed) (Mesquita et al. 2010).</p><p>Remarks. Prior to the present study, only the male genitalia of R. olivia had been figured (St Laurent and Kawahara 2019, St Laurent et al. 2020). Genitalia are largely consistent across the wide distribution of R. olivia, although phallus width does seem to vary slightly. Dissections from eastern Andean localities in Ecuador revealed a slightly more broadened phallus than those from western Andean localities, and eastern Andean Peruvian localities displayed a more cylindrical phallus. Roelofa olivia can be encountered at very high elevations, well above 3000 m, with many records from central regions of the Andes mountain chain (that is, not only on eastern or western slopes) and so it is likely that gene flow across the eastern and western slopes of the Andes occurs at various points along the latitudinal gradient where this taxon occurs. Minor external variation can be seen within populations collected at single localities as per the several large series in the MWM, thus variation which is likewise slight between more widely separated populations, is not indicative of various cryptic species. Our barcoding results suggest some phylogenetic structure among R. olivia populations, however we were only able to sequence one western Andean specimen from Ecuador, a single specimen from the Cordillera Central in Colombia (Risaralda) and two from the Cordillera Oriental (Santander and Cundinamarca). The Ecuadorian specimen was found be sister to a clade containing the three Colombian specimens with strong support, but support was weak for the sister relationship between the Risaralda specimen and the two from Cundinamarca. Overall, genetic differentiation among R. olivia was lower than between sister species R. hegewischi and R. monzoni, for example. Therefore, we do not at this time recognize distinct species within R. olivia and suggest population-level phylogenetic analyses for future research in this group. Such analyses would be better suited for uncovering phylogenetic structure worthy of taxonomic recognition.</p><p>In the MNHU, there is a single specimen labeled “ Perophora apicistriga ‡ Weym. [er]” from Colombia. Schaus (1928) mentioned this specimen as well and could not find a reference for the name. We also could not locate any publication using this name, thus it is apparently unavailable, although the specimen in question is certainly R. olivia .</p><p>Roelofa olivia was described from an indeterminate number of specimens, but a single male labeled as the “type” in the USNM is the only known syntype. Therefore, we designate this specimen as the lectotype.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F91468231C2F7BFF2501A6FAC8FE5D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F9146823042F75FF25026DFD69FA4D.text	03F9146823042F75FF25026DFD69FA4D.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa maricia Schaus 1928	<div><p>Roelofa maricia Schaus, 1928</p><p>(Figs 28–30, 33, 35, 38, 39, 41)</p><p>Roelofa maricia Schaus, 1928: 640, fig. 87c</p><p>Roelofa maricia; Gaede 1931</p><p>Roelofa maricia; Becker 1996</p><p>Roelofa maricia; St Laurent and Kawahara 2019</p><p>Type material: HOLOTYPE ♂. BRAZIL: [Holo]Typus/ Petropol[is]. 600 m, Brasilien, Rocha Miranda, 2, Sept. 1928 / Roelofa maricia type Schaus/ (ZSM, examined) .</p><p>Additional material examined: (45 ♂, 19 ♀ total) BRAZIL: Goiás: 1 ♂, Leopoldo de Bulhões: XII.1933, R Spitz leg., Brit. Mus. 1962-112, NHMUK010890543, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402326 (NHMUK). Espírito Santo: 7 ♂, 1 ♀, Santa Leopoldina, Santa Leopoldina, Dorf Tirol, 700 m, 40°50’W, 24°75’S: 22–31.X.1996 (1</p><p>♀), V.1997 (2 ♂), 15.V.1997(2 ♂), 10–25.XI.1996 (2 ♂), IV.1998, Hubert Thöny leg. (MWM). 3 ♂, Santa Leop- oldina, Santa Leopoldina, Dorf Tirol, 700 m, 40°33’W, 20°10’S: XII.1999, XI.2000, Hubert Thöny leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Dorf Tirol, 600 m: XI.2003, Martini leg., ex. coll. K. Martini (MWM) . 4 ♂, 1 ♀, Santa Leopoldina, Biriricas, ca. 700 m: 20.III–20.IV.1997 (2 ♂), I.1998 (2 ♂, 1 ♀), H. Thöny leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, Santa Leopoldina, Boquerão, 800 m: I.1998, Hubert Thöny leg. (MWM). 1 ♂, No further data (USNM). Minas Gerais: 2 ♂, 1 ♀, Poté, 500 m: 25.I.1997, ♀ genitalia prep. 35.540 (1 ♂, 1 ♀), 20.VI.1997 (1 ♂), H. Thöny leg. (MWM). Rio de Janeiro: 1 ♂, Teresópolis: 13–22.III.1958, HBD Kettlewell, BM 1958-273, NHMUK010890545 (NHMUK). 2 ♂, Barreira, Teresópolis, 400 m: 19–26.X.1957, Pearson H&amp;G, [No.] HRP 1870, Brit. Mus. 1962-112, NHMUK010890544 (NHMUK); 10–12.X.1958, Pearson H. &amp; G., HRP 2103, USNM-Mimal:2428 (USNM). 1 ♂, Barreira, Teresópolis, 350 m: 30.X–3.XI.1956, Pearson H&amp;G, No. HRP 1039, Brit. Mus. 1962-112, NHMUK010890542, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402325 (NHMUK). 3 ♂, 1 ♀, Teresópolis, Barreira: 23.VI.1955 (1 ♀), 13.X.1955 (1 ♂), 14.X.1955 (1 ♂), 15.X.1955 (1 ♂), ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.460, DZ 25.464, DZ 25.467, DZ 25.468 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Teresópo- lis, Barreira, 400 m: 22.II.1955, ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.466 (DZUP). 3 ♀, Teresópolis, 1000 m: 15.I.1985, V.O. Becker col., Col. Becker 54749, USNM-Mimal: 2101, VOB specimen with genitalia prep. 2795, USNM-Mimal: 2101 with St Laurent dissection 3-5-20:2 (2 ♀, USNM; 1 ♀ VOB). 1 ♂, Independência, Petrópolis: X.1932, L. T., 16.494 (CEIOC). 1 ♂, Independência, Petrópolis: III.1934, Vasconcellos (CEIOC). 1 ♂, Independência, Petrópolis, 900 m: 1.X.1939, Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.463 (DZUP). 1 ♂, Petrópolis, Serra: XI.1933, Trav[assos] col., 16.495 (CEIOC). 10 ♂, 1 ♀, Petrópolis: 30.X.1930 (1 ♂), 30.IV.1957 (3 ♂), 23.XI.1957 (5 ♂, 1 ♀), 30.IX.1957 (1 ♂), D’Almeida col., 19.003, 19.004, 19.005, 19.006, 19.007, 19.008, 19.009, 19.011, 19.012, DZ 19.013, DZ 25.442, DZ 25.443, DZ 25.444, DZ 25.445, DZ 25.446, DZ 25.447, DZ 25.449, DZ 25.450, DZ 25.457, Topotipo, D’Almeida col./D’Alm. Nysio and Octavio col. (DZUP). 2 ♂, 8 ♀, Petrópolis: 8.XII.1928 (1 ♀), 23.II.1960 (1 ♀), 13.X.1960 (1 ♀), 14.X.1960 (1 ♀), 21.X.1960 (1 ♂), 4.XI.1961 (1 ♀), 20.XI.1963 (1 ♀), 27.VII.1963 (1 ♂), 16.XI.1963 (1 ♀), 22.XI.1963 (1 ♀), Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.452, DZ 25.453, DZ 25.454, DZ 25.455, DZ 25.456, DZ 25.458, DZ 25.459, DZ 25.461, DZ 25.462, DZ 25.465 (DZUP). 1 ♀, Petrópolis, Parque São Vicen- te, 920 m: 10.V.1962, Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin, DZ 25.451 (DZUP). 2 ♀, Nova Friburgo, 600 m: 10.III.1993, V.O. Becker col., Col. Becker 86068, USNM-Mimal: 2102 (1 ♀, USNM; 1 ♀ VOB). 1 ♂, Guapi-mirim, Caneca Fina, Rio Sucavao, Mun. Mage, 160 m: 20–22.VI.1960, USNM-Mimal: 2413 (USNM).</p><p>Diagnosis. Like the preceding species, R. maricia is one of the larger Roelofa species, with R. olivia and R. maricia being similar in size and larger than others in the genus. Roelofa maricia is externally most similar to the Andean R. olivia, but has narrower wings, hyaline discal markings, and a longer apical streak that is more than half the length of the postmedial line. The two species are not sympatric. The male genitalia of R. maricia are also most similar to those of R. olivia, but the primary differences are narrower gnathos arms and toothed inner mesal projections at the base of the valvae, the gnathos is thicker in R. olivia and these valvae projections are not spined and are more fingerlike overall. Female genitalia are similar between these two species as well, but R. maricia has a wider sclerotized ventral region of segment VIII, with long posteriorly directed setae at the posterior margin of VIII. The dorsal VIII tergite is posteriorly projected mesally in R. maricia, not so in R. olivia .</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration dark brown, structure as for genus; antenna coloration as for genus, antennal structure as in R. olivia . Thorax: Coloration light brown with pink undertone. Legs: Coloration as for thorax albeit less pink, vestiture thick, long. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 17.5–22.5 mm, avg.: 20.4, n = 6, wingspan: 40.5–45.0 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth and concave below apex, becoming more convex mesally; apex somewhat pointed. Antemedial and medial ground orange brown, with thinner and lighter pink scaling layered above the orange brown, pink coloration more restricted to anal margin and costa; postmedially very light pink becoming darker submarginally, pink coloration most obvious in fresh specimens. Costa covered in pinkish brown scales. Antemedial line essentially absent, dark postmedial line black, preapical, angled toward costa at Rs 3, postmedial line connects to black streak of shading spanning from costa to Rs 3, reaching apex, light pink-white scaling narrowly follows lower margin of apical streak. Circular discal mark hyaline, narrowly edged with dark brown scales matching postmedial line in color, mark with accessory brown mark above giving discal mark an inverted comma-like shape. Forewing ventrum: Essentially identical to forewing dorsum, outer coloration of discal spot less well-defined. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but postmedial line not always as straight, discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, but postmedial line more diffuse than on hindwing dorsum. Abdomen: Robust, sphingiform, extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, long, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown tipped scale tufts. Genitalia: (Figs 38, 39) n = 2. Vinculum ovoid. Uncus simple, triangular, apically weakly narrowed. Gnathos robust, proximally rounded, with broad, dual mesal extensions that are fused together basally, mesal extensions fingerlike, narrow, uniform in width along entirety, length of distal arms longer than that of proximal portion of gnathos. Valvae narrow, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is extended and modified as upturned distally spined lobe-like protrusion which curves back over valvae, dorsal portion of these protrusions covered in setae, protrusions more heavily sclerotized than valvae; base of valvae notched on inner margin. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus, dorsally juxta with pair of small (about one quarter length of phallus) membranous processes attached to diaphragm. Phallus simple, pistol-shaped with curving coecum angled obtusely below phallus, phallus distally smooth, without spines. Vesica bag-like. Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 27.0–28.5 mm, avg.: 27.8 mm, n = 5, wingspan: 51.5–54.0 mm. As for male, but broader overall with wider submarginal area, concavity below apex small but pronounced. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but distal tip of abdomen with singular darker scaled tuft. Genitalia: (Fig. 41) n = 3. General structure similar to R. olivia, but less thickly sclerotized, dorsally segment VIII with straight posterior margin, triangular component of VIII folded inward so that apex directed anteriorly (triangular fold may become extended outward in slide mount), posteriorly margined with thick, elongate setae. Apophyses anteriores vestigial, almost nonexistent, apophyses posteriores very thickly sclerotized, robust, somewhat irregular in width along length. Ductus bursae thick, tubular, corpus bursae bag-like, ovoid. Papillae anales large, well-sclerotized, with setae shorter than overall length of papillae anales.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 43) Few, geographically widely separated records exist for R. maricia, but all are from southeastern Brazil. Almost all records are from Rio de Janeiro state and nearby Espírito Santo. It appears that this species is restricted to mountainous regions of Mata Atlântica, but one record exists from Goiás in the Cerrado. The presence of this species has not been verified in this biome. However, the handful of specimens from Poté, Minas Gerais does suggest that this species may be more widespread inland.</p><p>Remarks. Relative to other Mata Atlântica-inhabiting Mimallonidae, this species is rarely collected, especially since the 1950s and 60s (St Laurent pers. obs. based on museum holdings). It is not clear why this species has not been collected in other regions that have been more heavily sampled, especially São Paulo state or farther south in Paraná and Santa Catarina. A similar distribution pattern has been observed for Menevia plagiata (Walker, 1855) (St Laurent and Dombroskie 2016) . The first author examined the genitalia of the single Cerrado specimen (genitalia vial NHMUK010402326) in the NHMUK and noted no differences between it and a dissection from Rio de Janeiro (genitalia vial NHMUK010402325).</p><p>Roelofa maricia was originally described from the male only, thus the female and the genitalia of both sexes are figured here for the first time. Schaus (1928) mentioned that the type was in Berlin, though we located it in the ZSM in Munich. We consider this the holotype by monotypy since Schaus explicitly mentioned the “type”.</p><p>This species was not included in St Laurent et al. (2020) but is considered a close relative of R. olivia given the morphological similarity of the two species.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F9146823042F75FF25026DFD69FA4D	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F91468230A2F73FF250209FE52FDD3.text	03F91468230A2F73FF250209FE52FDD3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa hegewischi (Druce 1887)	<div><p>Roelofa hegewischi (Druce, 1887)</p><p>(Figs 42, 44–46, 50–52, 53–57)</p><p>Perophora hegewischi Druce, 1887, Tab. 24, fig. 3</p><p>Roelofa hegewishi; Schaus 1928: 640, fig. 87c, misspelling</p><p>Roelofa hegewischi; Gaede 1931</p><p>Roelofa hegewischi; Becker 1996</p><p>Roelofa hegewischi; St Laurent and Kawahara 2019</p><p>Roelofa hegewischi; St Laurent et al. 2020</p><p>Type material: HOLOYPE ♀. MÉXICO: Hegewischi Druce / Typus/ México. Hegewisch/ Coll. Staudinger./ Coll. Staudinger R. 916./ Type. Sp. figured./ Origin./ Perophora hegewischi type Druce/ (MNHU, examined) . No paratypes.</p><p>Additional material examined: (95 ♂, 23 ♀ total) México: Estado de México: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Malinalco: VI.1959, T. Escalante leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032506, 1032533 (MGCL). 3 ♂, Zacualpan: no date (1 ♂), 1918 (1 ♂), V.1922 (1 ♂), Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, NHMUK010890574–010890576 (NHMUK). 3 ♂, Zacualpan: “II 14” [II.1914?]; “14”; VII.1913, 172 (MNHU). Chiapas: 1 ♂, San Cristobal de las Casas: 3.V.1973, H.L. King leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032472 (MGCL). 1 ♂, Hwy 195, Jitotol–Rayon, Cabañas Siempre Verde env., 17°08’34.67’’N, 92°53’01.14’’W, 1695 m: 16.V.2015, S. Naumann &amp; B. Wenczel leg., St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:3 (MGCL). 1 ♂, 11 km N of Ososingo, 1400 m: 18.IX.1993, B. Kelly leg. (CRAS). 1 ♂, Santa Rosa Comitan: VIII.1948, T. Escalante leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032657 (MGCL). 1 ♂, Hwy 190, 5 km E Rizo del Oro, 16°28’04.91’’N, 94°01’44.44’’W, 820 m: 14.V.2015, S. Naumann &amp; B. Wenczel leg., St Laurent dissection and barcode: 8-17-17:4 (MGCL). 1 ♂, 28 mi. west Cintalapa: 9.IV.1962, F.D. Parker, L.A. Stange leg. (BME). Oaxaca: 1 ♂, 27 km 9° NE Huatulco, near Finca Monte-Carlo, 15°59.6’N, 96°06.3’W, 890 m: 26–31.VIII.2011, V. Siniaev &amp; O. Romanov leg., expedition Dr. R. Brechlin (MWM). Querétaro: 6 ♀, Jalpan [de Serra]: 21.VIII.1988 (2 ♀), 1 ♀ with St Lau- rent dissection: 3-5-20:1, 2.IX.1991 (2 ♀), 4.IX.1991 (2 ♀), J. Adams leg. (CRAS). San Luis Potosí: 1 ♂, Ciudad del Maiz à El Naranjo, Piste de Maguey del Oriente km 1.1, N22°29.268’, W99°25.070’, 2829 ft: 7.VIII.2003, J. Haxaire leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Ciudad del Maiz à El Naranjo, km 6.8, 22°26.660’N, 99°34.064’W, 1330 m: 27.VII.2000, J. Haxaire &amp; O. Paquit leg. (CDH). Veracruz: 1 ♂, Misantla: VI.18, coll. Joh. Laue (ZSM). 2 ♂, 2 ♀, Jalapa [recte Xalapa?]: 19.IV.13, 3.V.13 (2 ♂, ZSM); Collection of John T. Mason, Donated 1918 (1 ♀, DMNS); Collec- tion Wm. Schaus, USNM-Mimal: 1288 (1 ♀, USNM). 5 ♂, Huatuxco [recte Huatusco], Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890577–010890580, NHMUK010890583, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402322 (for specimen NHMUK010890583) (NHMUK). 1♀, No additional data, Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890584, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402327 (NHMUK). No state data: 1 ♂, Collection BrklynMus, USNM-Mimal: 1290 (USNM). BELIZE: Cayo: 4 ♂, Mtn. Pine Ridge, 1000’ Falls: 23.V.1990 (1 ♂) 28.VI.1990 (2 ♂), 29.VI.1990 (1 ♂), Linwood C. Dow leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032505, 1032596, 1032639, MGCL Acc. #2015-16 L. Dow (MGCL). GUATEMALA: Alta Verapaz: 3 ♂, 1 ♀, San Cristobal [Verapaz] 4000 ft: V.1916, J.D. Norton leg., Ex. Coll. HJ Elwes 1920, Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, HJ Turner BM 1949-586, Ex. AE Gibbs Coll H. Reynolds 1921-132, NHMUK010890569–010890572 (NHMUK). 2 ♀, San Cristobal [Verapaz?]: 1917, Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, NHMUK010890567, 010890568 (NHMUK). Baja Verapaz: 4 ♂, Quetzal Res., “Los Ranchitos,” 1680–1750 m: 10–15.VI.2007, J.B. Heppner leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032568 (MGCL). 1 ♂, Quetzal Res., “Los Ranchitos,” 1680 m: 27–30.VI.2012, J.B. Heppner leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032642 (MGCL). 1 ♂, Quetzal Res., “Los Ranchitos,” 1680 m: 3–6.VI.2017, J.B. Heppner and E. Fuller leg. (MGCL). 3 ♂, Biotopo del Quetzal, 15°12.952’N, 90°13.175’W, 1720 m: 23.V.2007, BC-Her 2757, 2761, D. Herbin &amp; M. L. Montagnani leg. (CDH). El Progreso: 2 ♂, Cerro Pi[ñ]alon, Bosque Pino [pine forest], 15.07298°, -89.94833°, 2219 m: 16–18.V.2010, J. Monzón, B. Sutton, G. Steck, P. Skelley, St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:9 (CJM). 2 ♂, Cerro Piñalon, Estación de campo Hector, Canteno, N15°05.037’, W89°56.563’, 2555 m: 27–28.IV.2017, J. Monzón, A. Mendez, &amp; S. Naumann leg. (MGCL). Guatemala: 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Guatemala City: Rodriguez leg., Rothschild Bequest BM 1939-1, God- man-Salvin Coll. 98.40., NHMUK010890566, 010890573 (NHMUK). San Marcos: 2 ♂, San Miguel Ixtahuacán, Mina Marlin, 15.225717°, -91.698268°, 2015 m: 2.V.2011, Camposeco &amp; Monzón leg., St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:10 (CJM). Zacapa: 5 ♂, San Lorenzo, El Naranjo, 15.07329°, -89.68482°, 1616 m: 30.V.2009, J. Monzón &amp; B. Sutton (1 ♂, CJM); 22–24.V.2010, J. Monzón, B. Sutton, G. Steck, P. Skelley leg., St Laurent dissection: 8- 17-17:5 (2 ♂, CJM); 30.V.2009, BC-Her 4297, J. Monzón leg. (2 ♂, CDH). 2 ♂, 1 ♀, 5 km SE La Union, Finca los Chorros, 14.942529°, -89.275854°, 1474 m: 12–15.V.2009, BC-Her 4184, Monzón and Camposeco leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, 3 km SE La Union, Finca los Chorros, N14°56.560’, W89°16.554’, 1443 m: 29–30.IV.2017, J. Monzón &amp; S. Naumann leg. (MGCL). 2 ♂, SE La Union, 14°57.156’N, 89°16.689’W, 1421 m: 15.V.2007, BC-Her 2759, D. Herbin &amp; M. L. Montagnani leg. (CDH). 3 ♂, N of San Lorenzo, 15.1023°, -89.6720°, 1902 m: 1.VI.2016, Peter Landolt leg. (CPL). 3 ♂, Sierra de las Minas, 12 km N of San Lorenzo, 3433 ft: 4–6.V.2006 (CPL). 13 ♂, 3 ♀, Sierra de las Minas, Cerro Monos, 15.11593°, -89.68541°, 2250 m: V.2008 (BC-Her 3681, 3683 [genitalia prep. D. Herbin ref H. 815], 3684) (6 ♂, 1 ♀), 1–3.VI.2009 [BC-Her 4104, 4105] (2 ♂, 1 ♀), 20.V.2010 (3 ♂), J. Monzón leg. (11 ♂, 2 ♀ total in CDH); 1–3.VI.2009, Monzón &amp; B. Sutton leg., St Laurent dissections: 8-17-17:7 (1 ♂, 1 ♀); 19–21.V.2010, J. Monzón, B. Sutton, G. Steck, P. Skelley [leg.], St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:6 (1 ♂) (2 ♂, 1 ♀ total in CJM). 3 ♂, Sierra de las Minas, N of Rio Hondo, E of San Lorenzo, Cerro Monos, N15°06.971’, W89°40.674’, 2243 m: 1–2.V.2017, J. Monzón &amp; S. Naumann leg. (MGCL). 1 ♀, Sierra de las Minas, “Santa Cruz”, “Marble Quarry Rd”, NE of Teculutan, N15°03.224’, W89°40.737’, 955 m: 21.V.2006, MV/bl, P.J. Landolt leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Sierra de las Minas, 15°04’33’’N, 89°41’33’’W, 1640 m: 13.X.2014, Barbut et al. leg. (CDH). No department data: 2 ♂, 3 ♀, G. Brückner S. G. (MNHU). 1 ♂, Georg Brückner (ZSM). 1 ♂ (RBINS). COSTA RICA: Cartago: 2 ♂, Orosi, Vulkan Jrazu [Irazú Volcano], 1200 m: Coll. Fassl. Teplitz, Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, NHMUK010890581, 010890582, genitalia prep. NHMUK010402324 (NHMUK). PANAMA: Chiriqui: 1 ♂, Alto Quiel, 1650 m: IV.2010 (CDH). 1 ♂, Mt. Totumas Lodge, nr. Volcan, 1900 m: 24–30.V.2014, J.B. Heppner leg., UF FLMNH MGCL 1032617 (MGCL). 7 ♂, near Volcan town, 8.885329°, -082.683527°, 1900–2050 m: V–VI.2018, A. Kozlov &amp; Yu. Kovaleva leg. (MGCL).</p><p>Additional records from the literature/ online resources: México: Chiapas: 1 ♂, La Trinitaria, 16.117605°, -91.674685°, 3.V.2016 (iNaturalist, observed by aleturkmen). HONDURAS: Francisco Morazán: Sex unknown, Uyuca hill, Uyuca Biological Reserve (RBU) (Usedo 2016). 2 ♂, Centro Zamorano, Reserva Biológica Monte Uyuca: 20.X.2019, 3.VI.2020 (iNaturalist, observed by Eric van den Berghe).</p><p>Diagnosis. Compared to all previous species, R. hegewischi can be recognized by the nearly uniform pale, salmon pink ground color, sharply falcate forewings, and double postmedial lines. Genitalia of R. hegewischi and R. monzoni are distinguished from those of other Roelofa by the combination of narrow gnathos arms which terminate in spatulate tips, usually with a distinct ventral projection; simple, yet broad basal-valvae upward turned lobes, and particularly elongated, well developed juxtal projections that are usually strongly attached to the dorsum of the phallus and which are longer than the phallus itself. Roelofa hegewischi can be distinguished from R. monzoni by the slightly different shade of pink coloration between both species (see Figs 44–49) and the complete to nearly complete absence of a secondary postmedial line in R. monzoni .</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration salmon pink, structure as for genus; antenna coloration as for genus, antennal structure as in R. olivia and R. maricia, though smaller overall, basally bipectinate distally finely serrate, appearing filiform. Thorax: Coloration deep salmon pink. Legs: Vestiture pale cream colored. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 15–23 mm, avg.: 19.2 mm, n = 41, wingspan: 29–46 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth and concave below apex, becoming more convex mesally; apex falcate, usually sharply. Antemedial and medial ground color salmon pink, usually quite faded in preserved material, coloration may be deep pink in fresh specimens, overall lightly speckled with dark brown petiolate scales; postmedially pink coloration fades, becoming more khaki-brown. Costal coloration only slightly darker than remainder of wing. Antemedial line essentially absent, dual postmedial line well-defined, inner line browner in color, outer line less complete, darker, blackish brown, inner line meets apical streak after perpendicular angle toward costa at Rs 3. Discal mark a pale pink band along outer margin of discal cell, usually very faint. Forewing ventrum: Coloration and patterning similar to forewing dorsum, but antemedial line, outer postmedial line, and discal spot absent; medially coloration may be gray. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, antemedial line and discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum though markings may be almost nonexistent. Abdomen: Extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, compact, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown scale tufts that heavily contrast against remainder of abdomen and may contribute to about one quarter overall length of abdomen in living and well-preserved specimens. Genitalia: (Fig. 53–57) n = 9. Vinculum ovoid, ventrally projected as small spine, diaphragm with dense region of elongated, but partially deciduous setae. Uncus simple, triangular, apically narrowed. Gnathos robust, proximally ovoid, with broad, dual mesal arms that are fused together basally, mesal arms narrow and fingerlike along their length but always distally flattened, usually with a slight downward projection at terminus, length of distal arms longer than that of proximal portion of gnathos. Valvae narrow, rounded apically, mostly simple except for inner mesal base, which is extended and modified as upturned fingerlike protrusion on each valva, which meet above phallus, protrusions not more heavily sclerotized than valvae; base of valvae notched on inner margin. Juxta partially fused to ventrum of phallus, and dorsally attached to diaphragm with pair of membranous processes that are longer than distal portion of phallus, these processes either remain attached to diaphragm or weakly attached to phallus upon removal of phallus. Phallus simple, pistol-shaped with curving coecum curved downward below, basal quarter of phallus smooth, distally lateral region of phallus covered by patch of small, semideciduous spines. Vesica elongate, bag-like. Female. Head: As for male but antenna finely serrate, appearing almost entirely filiform. Thorax: As for male. Legs: As for male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 20–27 mm, avg.: 24 mm, n = 11, wingspan: 42–45 mm. As for male, but broader overall, apex less falcate. Forewing ventrum: Similar to forewing dorsum, but coloration paler overall. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, but discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum. Abdomen: As for male but more robust overall, distal tip of abdomen lacking paired elongated scale tufts, but distal tip of abdomen with singular darker scaled tuft. Genitalia: (Fig. 42) n = 2. VIII a thickly sclerotized ring, continuous around circumference of segment, lamella antevaginalis a simple sclerotized band, lamella postvaginalis not sclerotized, dorsally VIII posteriorly smoothly curved along posterior margin with medial crease mesally. Apophyses anteriores vestigial, almost nonexistent, apophyses posteriores thickly sclerotized, somewhat irregular in width along length. Ductus bursae thick, tubular, corpus bursae bag-like, ovoid; together not much longer than remainder of genitalia. Papillae anales with setae shorter than overall length of papillae anales basally and much longer apically. Both examined dissections contained setae and potentially juxtal projections in ductus bursae, which are assumed to be derived from male.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 59) Moderate to high elevations (862 up to 2555 m) in México and Central America, see remarks regarding localities lower than 800 m. Most records are from mountainous regions of southern México and Guatemala, though records exist from Belize, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama. We expect this species in western Nicaragua as well, but there has been less sampling in this country historically (pers. obs.).</p><p>Remarks. Roelofa hegewischi was described from a single female specimen, which can be inferred from Druce (1887) who said “[it is] the only one I have seen of this species.” The specific type locality of this species in México is uncertain, as originally stated by Druce “it is without any exact Mexican locality, but most likely came from the southern part of that country.” Based on the records available to us, we agree that the type likely came from southern México.</p><p>Roelofa hegewischi has what appears to be a degree of elevational phenotypic plasticity since material from lower elevations such as those from Veracruz, Oaxaca, Chiapas (e.g. 5 km E Rizo del Oro), San Luis Potosi, and Belize are phenotypically more similar to R. monzoni, mainly in the smaller size, narrower wing shape, more curved postmedial line, and reduction (though it is still present) of the outer postmedial line. However, the coloration of all R. hegewischi populations seems mostly consistent, being of a different, darker shade of salmon pink compared to the lighter pink coloration of R. monzoni . Dense genetic sampling of various populations of R. hegewischi and R. monzoni should be attempted in order to discern whether several cryptic taxa exist. Though our COI barcoding of specimens throughout Guatemala suggests two clear lineages: R. hegewischi and R. monzoni described below. One lower elevation population that displays the slightly different phenotype from more typical R. hegewischi was also sequenced (RASBC817174 from Chiapas, México). This sample is sister to all R. hegewischi (with R. monzoni sister to this pair), suggesting that there may be additional cryptic taxa within our broader concept of R. hegewischi . However, due to limited genetic sampling and lack of consistent morphological characters, we identify all specimens as R. hegewischi, with only the unambiguously distinct (genetically and morphologically) R. monzoni from Finca Firmeza del Banco in Izabal, Guatemala considered diagnostically separable.</p><p>The apparently allopatric Costa Rican/Panamanian populations may be a reasonable candidate for further crypsis in the R. hegewischi / R. monzoni group. External appearance and genitalia (genitalia prep. NHMUK010402324, Fig. 55) do not suggest any obvious distinction of this population, though the genitalia are larger overall than those of most R. hegewischi . The gnathos arms of this particular specimen are more uniformly shaped at their termini than in other examined R. hegewischi and R. monzoni, though the gnathos is rather variable across various genitalia preparations of these taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F91468230A2F73FF250209FE52FDD3	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
03F91468230C2F72FF2506F6FC92FDC9.text	03F91468230C2F72FF2506F6FC92FDC9.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Roelofa monzoni St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara 2020	<div><p>Roelofa monzoni St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara, sp. n.</p><p>(Figs 47–49, 58)</p><p>Type material: HOLOYPE ♂. GUATEMALA: Izabal: GUATEMALA. Izabal, Morales. Finca Firmeza del Banco. Sierra de Caral, 600 m. 10 DICIEM. 2010, 15.407148 – 88.696255, Col. José Monzón Sierra / St Laurent dissection: 8-17-17:11/ HOLOTYPE ♂ Roelofa monzoni St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara, 2020 (UVGC) .</p><p>Paratypes: (5 ♂ total) GUATEMALA: Izabal: 3 ♂, Morales, Finca Firmeza del Banco, Sierra de Caral, 15.407148°, -88.696255°, 600 m: 7.V.2008 (BC-Her 3685), Monzón &amp; Camposeco leg., genitalia prep. D. Herbin ref H. 813 (2 ♂, CDH); 23.VII.2008 (BC-Her4186), J. Monzón &amp; O’briens (1 ♂, CDH). 1 ♂, Environs de Morales, Sierra de Caral, Finca Firmeza, N15°24’25.6’’, W88°41’46.1’’, 524 m: 7.IX.2010, B. Vincent leg. (CDH). 1 ♂, Firmeza, Rio Bobos, nr. Morales, 950 m: 29–31.V.2007, J.B. Heppner [leg.] (MGCL). Paratypes with the following yellow label: PARATYPE ♂ Roelofa monzoni St Laurent, Herbin and Kawahara, 2020 .</p><p>Diagnosis. Roelofa monzoni can only be confused with the other Central American species, R. hegewischi . Roelofa monzoni is usually smaller in overall size, a different, lighter, purple shade of pink, with less contrast in ground color between the medial and submarginal areas, and completely or nearly lacks the secondary outer postmedial line observed in R. hegewischi . The forewings of R. monzoni are narrower and more sharply falcate, with reduced apical shading, a postmedial line that usually curves less abruptly apically than in R. hegewischi . Ventrally the wings of R. monzoni are paler, more cream colored rather than the pink ventral coloration of R. hegewischi, which is not unlike the dorsal coloration in that species. Genitalia of R. monzoni are not particularly different from those of R. hegewischi, although the phallus is generally narrower in this new species.</p><p>Description. Male. Head: Coloration grayish pink, structure as for genus; antenna coloration as for genus, slightly more than basal third of antenna bipectinate, pectinations becoming longer then dramatically shortening near halfway point along antenna, after which antenna finely serrate appearing nearly filiform. Thorax: Coloration purple-pink but with grayish overtone. Legs: Vestiture pale purplish gray. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 18 mm, avg.: 18 mm, n = 2, wingspan: ~34–36 mm. Triangular, outer margin smooth and weakly concave below apex, becoming more convex mesally; apex falcate. Antemedial and medial ground color grayish purple-pink, overall lightly speckled with dark brown petiolate scales; postmedially grayish in color, not overly contrasting with medial area. Antemedial line essentially absent, singular postmedial line well-defined though may be outwardly lined with gray suffusion tornally, postmedial line deep brown in color, line meets apical streak forming smooth continuous arc, without abrupt curve apically. Discal mark a pale pink band along outer margin of discal cell, though this is almost entirely absent. Forewing ventrum: Coloration paler and grayer than forewing dorsum, only marking present are postmedial line and faint discal spot. Hindwing dorsum: Following similar patterning to forewing dorsum, antemedial line and discal spot absent. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum, markings may be almost nonexistent. Abdomen: Extending beyond anal hindwing margin, coloration as for thorax. Vestiture thick, compact, distal tip of abdomen with pair of elongated, dark-brown scale tufts that heavily contrast against remainder of abdomen and may contribute to about one quarter overall length of abdomen in living and well-preserved specimens. Genitalia: (Fig. 58) n = 2. As for R. hegewischi . Female. Unknown.</p><p>Distribution. (Fig. 59) This species is only known from the type locality in Izabal, Guatemala.</p><p>Etymology. This species is named in honor of the collector of the holotype, José Monzón Sierra of Guatemala. José has assisted the authors over the years in accessing Guatemalan Mimallonidae specimens for research.</p><p>Remarks. Roelofa monzoni is most similar to the only other Central American Roelofa, R. hegewischi, but can be distinguished using the above diagnosis. Since verified records of R. monzoni are only from the type locality, from where R. hegewischi has not been collected, we do not know whether these two species are sympatric. Furthermore, R. monzoni inhabits a lower elevation than what is most often reported for R. hegewischi, a mountain dwelling species typically found above 800 m.</p><p>We first became aware of the potential novelty of R. monzoni as a separate taxon distinct from R. hegewischi based on the subtle, but consistent morphological differences. Our suspicions were confirmed by COI barcoding, such that R. monzoni reliably forms a well-supported clade sister to, and distinct from, R. hegewischi . Although R. monzoni was not included in St Laurent et al. (2020), it is exceedingly similar to R. hegewischi, and our barcoding results support this. They are therefore here considered sister taxa.</p></div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03F91468230C2F72FF2506F6FC92FDC9	Public Domain	No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	St Laurent, Ryan A.;Herbin, Daniel;Kawahara, Akito Y.	St Laurent, Ryan A., Herbin, Daniel, Kawahara, Akito Y. (2020): Revision of Roelofa Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae, Roelofinae) with a description of a new species. Zootaxa 4877 (3): 505-538, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.3.6
