Eurota hilaris, Zerny, 1937

Pinheiro, L. R. & Gaal-Haszler, S., 2015, Illustrated catalogue of Neotropical Ctenuchina, Euchromiina and Pericopina types (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Arctiinae, Arctiini) described by Hans Zerny, with discussion on their taxonomic status, Zootaxa 3925 (4), pp. 505-535 : 520

hilaris Zerny, 1937

( Fig. 49 )

Eurata herrichii Hampson, 1898 ; Orfila, 1931 (misidentification of E. herrichii Butler, 1876 ). Nine syntypes: ARGENTINA, Tapikiolé; Goya; Misiones to Buenos Aires. One male syntype with two labels “Tapikiolé-Arg. XII, 25-I.26 Lind. D. Chaco-Exped.”, and “Eurota hilaris Zerny (Herricki Hmps.) det. Zerny” (ZSM) [examined]. One male syntype with four labels: “Goya, Brazil, Perrens”; Glaucopis sericaria Pert. ”; “Joicey bequest Brit. Mus. 1934-120”; and “BMNH(E) 1475644” (BMNH) [examined]. Seven syntypes of unknown sex and exact localities [not examined].

Eurota [sic] hilaris Zerny, 1937: 12 .

Current combination. Eurata hilaris Zerny, 1937 .

Condition of the types. ZMS syntype. Wings partially eaten by pests. Right antenna broken. BMNH syntype. Left antenna broken near the tip. Wings sligthly worn. Left foreleg missing.

Remarks. Eurota is a misspelling of Eurata Herrich-Schäffer , [1853]; the genus is currently considered to belong to Euchromiina .

The history of Eurata hilaris involves the history of other names in the genus: it was proposed by Zerny (1937) for Hampson’s (1898: 288) concept of E. herrickii , a misspelling of E. herrichii Butler, 1876 . Hence, according to Zerny (1937), E. herrickii is both a misspelling and a misidentification of E. herrichii . The latter, on the other hand, was proposed by Butler (1876a) for Herrich-Schäffer’s (1854) concept of E. sericaria (Perty, 1833) .

The idea that E. sericaria and E. herrichii are distinct species was widely accepted until the article by Zerny (1937), who was of the opinion not only that Hampson’s specimen was a different species, but also that the true concept of E. herrichii is, in fact, a junior synonym of E. sericaria (Perty, 1833) .

Eurata herrichii was described from an undetermined number of specimens from the Kaden collection, currently deposited at the ZIN. Only one was found by the first author, and the drawing provided by Herrich- Schäffer (1854) matches it perfectly. The type (s) of Eurata sericaria , on the other hand, is (are) lost (Axel Hausmann, personal communication), and no collection visited by the first author has specimens exactly matching Perty’s illustration.

The type series of E. hilaris is composed by all specimens mentioned in its original description, directly or by bibliographic evidence (ICZN, article 72.4.1). Zerny (1937) mentioned one specimen collected by Lindner, plus those mentioned by Hampson (1898) and Orfila (1931). Hence, the type series is composed of all of them: the single specimen collected by Lindner, the single one misidentified by Hampson (1898), plus the seven mentioned by Orfila (1931) from different Argentinian collections (four from Mus. Nac. Hist Nat., two from Col. Lab. Zool., Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Buenos Aires, and one from Col. Breyer, according to Orfila). The BMNH has two specimens from Goya, one with only this information on the label, the other, here considered the syntype mentioned by Hampson (1898), with the information “Goya, Brazil, Perrens”. The mention to Brazil is erroneous, as this city is in the Argentinian province of Corrientes, close to the Brazilian border. The Argentinian collections could not be examined. The type status of Orfila’s specimens must be carefully evaluated, given that due to the circumstances of the description of E. hilaris , they will not have type labels.

Because all these taxonomic changes were proposed without examination of the types, but only through drawings and descriptions, the validity of all these names must be reevaluated, which should be done in a full revision of Eurata .

Figures

FIGURES 49–54. 49) Eurota [sic] hilaris (Syntype); 50) Gymnelia jordani (Lectotype); 51) Eurota [sic] marcia (Syntype); 52) Cosmosoma pseudothia (Syntype); 53) Eucyane variabilis roseofasciata (Lectotype); 54) Cosmosoma xanthomelan (Lectotype). Scale bars: 1 cm. FIGURES 55–65. 55) Eucyane variabilis flavofasciata, genitalia of the lectotype, dorsal view and phallus; 56) Diptilon crassum, genitalia of the holotype, ventral view and phallus; 57) Schasiura gymnelioides, genitalia of the holotype, ventral view and phallus; 58) Cercopimorpha hoffmanni, genitalia of a specimen from Tambopata, Peru, deposited at MZSP, dorsal view and phallus; 59) Eucereon lychnis, genitalia of the lectotype, lateral view and phallus; 60) Eucereon lychnis, genitalia of one of the female paralectotypes, lateral view; 61) Ceramidia pinguis, genitalia of the holotype, lateral view and phallus; 62) Eucereon sericeum, genitalia of the lectotype, ventral view and phallus; 63) Calonotos acutipennis, genitalia of the lectotype, lateral view and phallus; 64) Abrochia spitzi, genitalia of a specimen without locality deposited at MZSP, dorsal view and phallus; 65) Heliura zonata ab. aurantiaca, genitalia of Zerny’s male, dorsal view and phallus. Scale bars: 1 cm.