Lutilabria prolata Junnilainen & Nupponen

Junnilainen, Jari & Nupponen, Kari, 2010, The gelechiid fauna of the southern Ural Mountains, part I: descriptions of seventeen new species (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), Zootaxa 2366, pp. 1-34 : 28-30

Lutilabria prolata Junnilainen & Nupponen sp. n.

Figs. 63–64

Type material. Holotype: 3 (Fig. 63): Russia, S-Ural, Orenburg district, 52°45’N 53°05’E, 250–300 m, near Zesnokovka village, 09.VI.2001, K. Nupponen leg. Genitalia slide: K. Nupponen prep. no. 2/ 30.IV.2006 ( TKN, to be deposited in ZMH). Paratypes (8 3): 3 3 Same data as holotype ( TKN). Russia, W Bashkiria, 54°28’N 54°05’E, 200–250 m, ozero Kandrykul, 30.V.2001 (4 3), K. Nupponen leg. ( TKN). Rumänien- Dobrogea, Macin G. - Greci, 100–300 m, 3.6.1997 (1 3), Dr. Ch. Wieser leg. (LMK). Genitalia slides: J.

Junnilainen prep. no. 0 3021101, P. Huemer prep. no. GU99/866. One genitalia preparation preserved in glycerol.

PLATE 12. Figures 60–62. Lutilabria volgensis Anikin & Piskunov, 1996 . 60. Imago (male, S Ural); 61. Male genitalia (S Ural; slide KN 3/ 30.V.2006); 62. Female genitalia (slide JJ 02012005). Figures 63–64. Lutilabria prolata Junnilainen & Nupponen sp. n. 63. Imago (male, holotype); 64. Male genitalia (holotype; slide KN 2/ 30.IV.2006).

Diagnosis. Externally L. prolata is rather easy to separate from a closely related L. volgensis Anikin & Piskunov, 1996 by its larger size, more slender and greyish forewings and longer and darker labial palps. The male genitalia of L. prolata are also close to those of L. volgensis , but differ by a broader and more strongly curved valva, a longer, narrower and distally more strongly tapered saccus and broader tegumen. In L. prolata , lateromedial humps on posterior margin of vinculum are wider and posteriorly less elongate than those of L. volgensis . The male genitalia of L. kaszabi Povolný, 1978 differ from those of L. prolata by a slenderer aedeagus, narrower and apically rounded lateromedial humps at posterior margin of vinculum and a broader and almost straight sacculus; L. olympica Huemer, 1993 by a broader and distally less curved saccus, a slight medial incision of posterior margin of vinculum and a slenderer sacculus and valva; L. lutilabrella ( Mann, 1857) by absecnce of a deep median incision at posterior margin of vinculum and a slenderer and medially strongly curved sacculus.

Description. Wingspan 18.5 mm. Head, thorax and tegulae covered by grey, dark-tipped scales. Antenna dark brown, faintly ringed pale fuscous. Labial palp dark brown, relatively long. Legs basally dark fuscous, distally somewhat paler. Forewing unicolorous dark fuscous. Hindwing fuscous.

Male genitalia (Fig. 64). Uncus subrectangular plate, 1.5x as long as wide, distal margin medially concave. Gnathos basally horseshoe-shaped with rough culcitula. Tegumen moderately short and very broad. Pedunculi elongated plates, 1.5x as long as wide. Valva long and broad, gradually curved, apically tapered. Sacculus slightly narrower than valva, strongly curved, about 0.75 length of valva. Posterior margin of vinculum with V-shaped medial incision and short and wide subtriangular lateromedial humps. Saccus as long as valva, slender, gradually tapered towards backwards curved apex. Aedeagus 1.2x length of saccus; caecum roundish; distal part evenly broad, slightly bent medially, apex hook-shaped.

Female genitalia. Unknown.

Bionomy. The specimens were collected in late May and early June from steppe habitats.

Distribution. Russia (S Ural), Romania.

Etymology. Lat. prolatus = elongated. From elongated forewings and labial palps of the moth.

Remarks. L. prolata and L. volgensis occur sympatrically in the southern Ural region. L. volgensis was described from Saratov province, about 400–500 km to the southwest from the localities where L. prolata was discovered in the Urals. The identification of L. volgensis is a little bit problematic, because the male genitalia of the holotype are damaged and lack the aedeagus and posterior part of the vinculum. As the remaining structures and the external appearance of the moth are identical to those of our specimens (see Figs. 60–62), evidently the smaller species (see diagnosis above) occurring in the Urals is conspecific with L. volgensis .