Evergestis affinis Amsel, 1951

Alipanah, Helen, Khodadad, Masoumeh, Rajaei, Hossein & Haseli, Mohammad, 2018, Taxonomic study of the genus Evergestis Hübner, 1825 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae: Glaphyriinae) in Iran with description of a new species, Zootaxa 4420 (1), pp. 1-33: 2-3

publication ID


publication LSID


persistent identifier


treatment provided by


scientific name

Evergestis affinis Amsel, 1951


Evergestis affinis Amsel, 1951 

Material examined. SMNKAbout SMNK: Paratype ♂, Iran, Fars, Straβe Ardekan (presently known as Sepidān) – Talochosroe (an erroneous spelling of Tal Khosrow), Comé (German spelling of Komehr), 3700 m, 10.viii.1937, leg. H. G. Amsel, coll. Brandt (ex. coll. H. G. Amsel) (GS: HA-2038).

Distribution. Iran: (Fars Prov.: Komehr; type locality of the species) ( Amsel 1951, 1961).

Remarks. As stated by Amsel (1951), this species is very close to E. caesialis  externally except for wing's termen, which is more oblique in E. affinis  than E. caesialis  . Moreover, ground color of the forewing in E. affinis  is yellow, whereas it is slightly darker in E. caesialis ( Amsel 1951)  . The same differences are observed in the examined specimens of both species, i.e. the upper- and undersides of both wings of E. caesialis  are remarkably darker than E. affinis  ( Figs 1A–D View Figure ).

According to Amsel (1951), E. affinis  and E. caesialis  could easily be distinguished from each other by the wider uncus and shorter ganthos of E. affinis  . In the examined specimens, length of the gnathos is one-half and three-fourths of the length of uncus in E. affinis  and of E. caesialis  , respectively. Moreover, the following differences in the male genitalia of these two species were recognized:

(1) Neck of the uncus in E. caesialis  is relatively narrower than in E. affinis  ( Figs 2A, E, H View Figure ) and the shape of uncus tip in lateral view is different in these two species; being more rounded in dorsal surface and truncated distally in E. affinis  , comparing to E. caesialis  which resembles as an elongated triangle ( Figs 2B, F View Figure ).

(2) In E. affinis  only few teeth (about six), with almost equal length and considerable distances from each other, are visible on the ventral surface of gnathos. These teeth extended along the shaft towards the middle part. In contrast, E. caesialis  has more than fiftheen teeth with different sizes on the ventral surface of gnathos. These teeth, which are close to each other and sometimes hardly being distinguished as separate teeth, are not occurred in the distal one-fifth of gnathos ( Figs 2B, G, H View Figure ).

(3) In E. affinis  , distal end of the phallus is almost half length of its proximal end or slightly less, while in E. caesialis  it is nearly two-thirds of the proximal end ( Figs 2A, E View Figure ). Moreover, there are two small clusters of cornuti in distal end of the phallus in E. affinis  , one being slightly denser than the other; whereas in E. caesialis  it is consisted of one small cluster ( Figs 2D, I View Figure ).

4) Anterior end of juxta in E. caesialis  is wider than in E. affinis  ( Figs 2C, J View Figure ).

The female specimen of E. affinis  was not available for study.


Staatliches Museum fuer Naturkunde Karlsruhe (State Museum of Natural History)