Euriphellus cebrenus ( Cramer, 1777 ) Zhang & Cong & Shen & Grishin, 2022

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui & Grishin, Nick V., 2022, Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), Insecta Mundi 2022 (921), pp. 1-135 : 11

Euriphellus cebrenus ( Cramer, 1777) , new combination

The original illustration of Papilio cebrenus Cramer, 1777 (type locality Suriname) shows that the forewing discal cell yellow bar reaches costa, and the yellow spot in cell M 3 -CuA 1 is close to the spot in cell CuA 1 -CuA 2 ( Cramer 1777). N.V.G. also inspected the original Lambertz drawing of P. cebrenus in the library of the National History Museum, London, UK used as a source of published Cramer’s engravings ( Gilbert 2000). These drawings are usually more accurate than the published copies, but in this case the Lambertz drawing did not reveal additional information because the illustrations were quite similar. Evans (1952) applied the name cebrenus to a species known only from Southwest and South Brazil that has some similarities in wing patterns to Cramer’s P. cebrenus , but the yellow bar does not extend towards costa beyond discal cell, and the spot in M 3 -CuA 1 is midway between the discal cell spot and apical spots. Therefore, both by wing pattern and by locality, P. cebrenus is a closer match to some females of the species known today as Euriphellus euribates (Stoll, 1782) (type locality Suriname) than to the species from South Brazil Evans called “ cebrenus ”. Furthermore, on the plate 170, Draudt (1922) illustrated a number of Hesperiidae species with P. cebrenus among them. Size comparison of the images suggests that the P. cebrenus specimen was larger than E. euribates and about the same size as Telegonus hesus Westwood, 1852 (currently a junior subjective synonym of E. euribates ). Males of the species Evans called “ cebrenus ” are smaller in size (although size arguments should be taken with caution, due to possibly significant variation), and the Lambertz/ Cramer illustrations do not resemble a female of that species, which has a continuous forewing discal band and not a broken one as in the true P. cebrenus . Therefore, we conclude with confidence that Evans misidentified P. cebrenus and we place it in the genus Euriphellus Austin, 2008 (type species Papilio euribates Stoll, 1782 ) to result in Euriphellus cebrenus ( Cramer, 1777) , new combination. We have not sequenced the specimens from the Guianas and do not know whether the narrow-banded females with the forewing band reaching costa (i.e., E. cebrenus ) represent a variation of broader-banded females with the forewing band ending in discal cell (i.e., E. euribates ), or they are two distinct taxa. Therefore we presently refrain from synonymizing Euriphellus euribates (Stoll, 1782) under Euriphellus cebrenus ( Cramer, 1777) until further research sheds light on this possible synonymy.