Ennominae

Hausmann, Axel & Parra, Luis E., 2009, An unexpected hotspot of moth biodiversity in Chilean northern Patagonia (Lepidoptera, Geometridae), Zootaxa 1989, pp. 23-38: 31-32

publication ID

10.5281/zenodo.185522

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AC87C0-EB09-FF9A-04D6-041EFB8DF895

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Ennominae
status

 

[ Ennominae  ]

[65–70] [genus Leucolithodes  ]: Possibly rather a boarmiine than a nacophorine genus (the latter suggested by Pitkin 2002), cf. the New Zealandian boarmiine genus Pseudocoremia  , which is similar in habitus.

[71–88; 98–103; 153–157] [Nacophorini]: Chilean “nacophorines”, according to the concept of Pitkin (2002) not well clustering together in the COIAbout COI NJ tree and in the multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown). Deep phylogeny relationships and tribal systematics requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[75–79] Talca  sp. 1: COIAbout COI NJ tree with shallow split of 1.4 % maximum divergence between both branches. However, without corresponding differential feature in habitus.

[83–85] Euangerona valdiviae Butler, 1882  (on fig. 4 b as ' Omaguaca cf. longibursae  '): Larvae of different development stages beaten from Nothofagus dombeyi  . Nearest neighbour in COIAbout COI analysis is Macrolyrcea monochorda  with a comparatively low sequence divergence (6.3 %). Larval morphology well corresponding to that of Euangerona longibursae Parra, 1984  (central Chile), feeding on Nothofagus obliqua  . However, coloration of larva quite different.

[89–109; 110–148] [Lithinini]: Chilean “lithinines”, according to the concept of Pitkin (2002), clustering together in two clades of the COIAbout COI NJ tree. In the multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown), however, Psilaspilates  , Tanagridia  and Caltha  sp. 2 grouped together with Tasmanian Nacophorini. Deep phylogeny relationships and tribal systematics requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[89–97] [genus Odontothera  ]: In Pitkin (2002) as Lithinini genus. Both COIAbout COI NJ tree and multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) showing a clade including Chloroclydon  , “ Opisogonia  ”, Neorumia  , Macrolyrcea  , Euangerona  and Odontothera  . Therefore the hypothesis should be tested, that Odontothera  may be a Nacophorini genus. Hostplants are unknown for genus Odontothera  .

[91–94] Odontothera mixta ( Butler, 1882)  : Molecular analysis ( COIAbout COI) revealing specific difference (sequence divergence 3.3 %; mean intraspecific variation 0.4 % and 0% resp.) from Odontothera valdiviata  , but some specimens [91] similar to the latter.

[98–100] Chloroclydon  ? rinodaria ( Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875). In Scoble (1999) as larentiine moth. In Pitkin (2002) not included. In the COIAbout COI NJ tree and multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped with “ Opisogonia  ”, Neorumia  , Macrolyrcea  , Euangerona  and Odontothera  . Therefore, preliminarily, attributed to Nacophorini sensu Pitkin (2002).

[101–103] Opisogonia  ? diffissata Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875: According to Pitkin (2002) the generic combination with Opisogonia  is incorrect and the species may be attributed to Nacophorini. In the COIAbout COI NJ tree and multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped with Chloroclydon  , Neorumia  , Macrolyrcea  , Euangerona  and Odontothera  .

[104–107] Neorumia gigantea Bartlett-Calvert, 1883  ( Fig. 3): According to Pitkin (2002) possibly a nacophorine or lithinine moth, the former supported in the COIAbout COI NJ tree by the position in the clade together with Chloroclydon  , “ Opisogonia  ”, Macrolyrcea  , Euangerona  and Odontothera  .

[108–109] Calta debilis ( Butler, 1882)  , comb. n.: Morphology (current research of junior author) and position in COIAbout COI NJ tree suggesting a separate genus from Odontothera  where it was currently placed ( Pitkin 2002). Male antennae lamellate, anellus process long, thin, with a tuft of apical setae as long as length of anellus. Position in Lithinini not supported by position in COIAbout COI NJ tree, where it groups together with some putative nacophorine genera such as Chloroclydon  , “ Opisogonia  ”, and Neorumia  . COIAbout COI data from other seasons (not shown in the tree) suggesting two different species, possibly.

[110–117] [genus Tanagridia  ]: In Pitkin (2002) as Lithinini genus, but in the multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) grouped together with the genera Psilaspilates  , Euclidiodes  , Lacaria  and the species “ Calta  ” sp. 2 and well clustering to a large set of Tasmanian Nacophorini genera. Tribal systematics and position of Tanagridia  requiring more extensive studies with an integrative approach of morphological and molecular techniques.

[116–117] Tanagridia rhaphis ( Rindge, 1986)  : COIAbout COI data (barcoding fragment) suggesting two different species, possibly (sequence divergence 1.9 %).

[118–120] ” Calta  ” sp. 2: Generic combination very tentatively. See remarks to [110–117]. ” Calta  ” sp. 2 groups especially close to the Tasmanian Capusa senilis  with which it shares also the narrow forewings.

[121–122] [genus Lacaria  ]: See remarks to [110–117].

[123–124] [genus Euclidiodes  ]: See remarks to [110–117].

[125–148] [genus Psilaspilates  ]: See remarks to [110–117]. In the multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) interestingly at a close position to the Australian genus Amelora (Nacophorini)  , with which it shares a close similarity in habitus.

[125] Psilaspilates ceres ( Butler, 1882)  : Sequence divergence from P. signistriata  1.7 %, intraspecific variation of the latter 0.06 %. Correlated with differences in habitus e.g., darker ground colour, transverse fascia almost absent.

[136–138] Psilaspilates  sp. 2 ( cf. signistriata  ): COIAbout COI data showing a shallow split to P. signistriata  . Though being small (0.6 %) the sequence divergence is correlated with particular wing pattern. Mean infraspecific variation is 0.06 % and 0.1 % respectively.

[153–157] [genus Catophoenissa  ]: see remarks to Nacophorini [71–88; 98–103; 153–157]. In the multigene analysis ( COIAbout COI, EF 1 alpha, 28 S; 1914 bp; not shown) Catophoenissa  comes out as sister genus of Hasodima  , however.

[158–159] Syncirsodes  sp. 1 ( cf. primata  ): COIAbout COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata  and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[160–164] Syncirsodes primata ( Walker, 1862)  : One of the records, BC 11154, referring to a L 4 larva, beaten from Luma apiculata  ( Myrtaceae  ) and identified through DNAAbout DNA barcoding.

[165–168] Syncirsodes hyadesii (Mabille, 1882)  : COIAbout COI data suggesting clear specific difference from the other four members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[169–170] Syncirsodes  sp. 2: COIAbout COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata  and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus.

[171] Syncirsodes straminea ( Butler, 1882)  : COIAbout COI data suggesting clear specific difference from S. primata  and the other three members of the genus, collected at Huinay. Variable in habitus

COI

University of Coimbra Botany Department

DNA

Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport