Athis clitarcha ( Westwood, 1877 )

García-Díaz, José De Jesús, Espinoza-Sanabria, Bernardo A., Worthy, Robert, González, Jorge M., Janzen, Daniel H. & Hallwachs, Winnie, 2024, Synopsis of the Castniidae (Lepidoptera) of Costa Rica, Zootaxa 5481 (2), pp. 151-202 : 176

14. Athis clitarcha ( Westwood, 1877)

( Figs. 5C, 5D , 10I , 12B )

Castnia clitarcha Westwood, 1877 ; Westwood, 1877. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lon., Zoo. 2(1), p. 176, pl. 31, figs. 1–2.

Aciloa clitarcha ; Houlbert, 1918. Étud. Lép. Comp. 15, pp. 64, 443, 691, 710, fig. 153, pl. CDLI, fig. 3811.

Castnia clitarcha ; Miller, 1972. Bull. Allyn Mus. 6, p. 3, figs. 6, 11–14.

Athis clitarcha ; Miller, 1995, in Heppner. Castnioidea: Castniidae : Castniinae , Checklist part 2, Atlas Neo. Lep., p. 133. Athis clitarcha ; Lamas, 1995. Revta. Per. Ent. 37, p. 76.

General comments. Described as Castnia clitarcha Westwood, 1877 based on specimens collected in Nicaragua and Panama ( Westwood 1877; Miller 1972). Houlbert (1918) placed it in Aciloa Houlbert, 1918 but later, Miller (1986, 1995) transferred it to Athis , with which Lamas (1995) agreed. Since its description, Druce (1883) and Rothschild (1919) had doubts about how to separate A. inca from A. clitarcha , because their wing patterns are similar in both sexes. Rothschild (1919) mentioned that C. clitarcha was possibly a polymorphic species. Druce (1883) considered that the male illustrated by Westwood (1877) in his description was a typical male of A. inca , since the hindwing margin was orange. Druce (1883) also mentioned that the male of A. clitarcha is larger than that of A. inca and the margin of the hindwing of the former is black rather than orangish; furthermore, the male illustrated by Westwood (1877) has a hindwing postdiscal spot band narrower than that of A. inca inca . Miller (1972) considered A. clitarcha a valid species, after comparing it with other species of the “ inca complex”. She also mentioned that this species and A. inca are sympatric in some countries of Central America, which has been corroborated by other authors (see González & Hernández-Baz 2012; Van den Berghe et al. 2020).

The following clues help separate the species.

Both sexes:

● Both species have a black spot in spaces M 2 -M 3 and CuA 1 -CuA 2 on the dorsal forewing, the male clitarcha usually has another in space M 3 -CuA 1, this is always present and very large in the female.

● The postdiscal spotband on the dorsal hindwing is more or less continuous in inca ; in clitarcha , it more resembles a series of separate spots.

● The margin on the dorsal hindwing is generally black in clitarcha , but more orange in inca .

Males:

● The dorsal surface of the forewing is generally a more yellowish brown in clitarcha , and a more reddish brown in inca .

Females:

● The pale band distad of the postdiscal band on the dorsal hindwing is the same color as the discal area in inca ; in clitarcha , it is generally much paler, usually yellow rather than orange.

A combination of all of these features should be used, rather than any one in isolation. Whilst there are always occasional specimens that are difficult to place, this should enable most specimens to be correctly identified.

Ecology and behavior. It is diurnal like all members of the “ inca complex”. Females have been seen ovipositing in epiphytic bromeliads ( Bromeliaceae ) in Sabalito, Coto Brus, Puntarenas (Casey Owen, pers. comm.) ( Fig. 10I ).

Distribution and biogeography. It has been collected from Guatemala to Panama ( Westwood 1877; Rothschild 1919; Miller 1972; Maes & González 2022). Iorio & Zilli (2016) illustrated a female from Roberto Vinciguerra’s collection from Otanche, Boyacá, Colombia, but it resembles Athis inca . In Costa Rica, this species has been found in the following cantons: Puntarenas: Coto Brus, Monteverde. According to the biogeographical proposal of Morrone et al. (2022), in Costa Rica A. clitarcha has been recorded in localities that belong to the Puntarenas-Chiriquí province of the Pacific dominion in the Brazilian subregion.

Figures

FIGURE 5. A–B: Athis inca inca; A: ♂, Prov. Heredia, Sarapiquí, Est. Biol. La Tirimbina, 167m, 17ABR2012, C. Miranda, Colecta Libre, L_N_266268_523359 #108029, INB0004386557, MNCR-A4386557 (MNCR); B: ♀, Prov. Heredia, Sarapiquí, Est. Biol. La Tirimbina, Mirador, 167m, 3MAY2011, I. Chacón, L_N_266268_523359. #102187, INB0004284659, MNCR- A4284659 (MNCR); C–D: Athis clitarcha; C: ♂, Monteverde, Costa Rica, 3-2012 (DC); D: ♀, Panama, Volcano de Chiriqui, 5–9000 ft., (Watson) (NHMUK). Scale bar = 2cm.

FIGURE 10. A–B: Amauta procera; A: ♀, Golfito, Puntarenas, 19-II-2002 (photo: Gernot Kunz); B: ♂, Sarapiquí, Heredia, 06-III-2014 (photo: Matthew Grube); C: ♀, Prometheus zagraea zagraea, Osa, Puntarenas, 02-III-2012 (photo: GringoCurt); D–E: Divana diva diva; D: ♂, Puntarenas, Puntarenas, 27-V-2018 (photo: David Curlis); E: ♀, San Ramón, Alajuela, 27-V- 2010 (photo: John B. Schneider); F–G: Athis palatinus staudingeri; F: ♀, Golfito, Puntarenas, 08-II-2021 (photo: Chatelle Taylor); G: ♂, Aguirre, Puntarenas, 16-I-2020 (photo: Ted Armstrong); H: ♂, Athis analibiae, Talamanca, Limón, 09-V-2023 (photo: Heiner Ziegler); I: ♀, Athis clitarcha, Coto Brus, Puntarenas, 14-III-2020 (photo: Casey Owen); J: ♂, Athis inca inca, Sarapiquí, Heredia, 26-X-2018 (photo: Laurens Halsey).

FIGURE 12. Distribution maps of the genera Amauta (A), Athis (B, C), Corybantes and Mirocastnia (D), Divana (E) and Prometheus (F) in Costa Rica.