Xenophysa cacumena ( Brandt, 1938 )

Varga, Zoltán, 2011, Revision of the genus Xenophysa Boursin, 1969 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), Zootaxa 3094, pp. 1-29 : 5

Xenophysa cacumena ( Brandt, 1938) stat. rev.

Agrotis (Ogygia) cacumena Brandt, 1938 , Entomologische Rundschau 55: 502, figs 96–98. Type locality: Iran, Fars, Zaghros Mts. (Barm i Firus).

Type material. Holotype: male, “ Iran, Fars, Straße Ardekan-Talochosroe, Comée (Barm i Firus), ca 3750 m, 1937, coll. Brandt”, “ Holotype, Agrotis (Ogygia) cacumena Brdt, Brandt ” “RM prep. 5692” Revised material: a large series of 3 and Ƥ paratypes from the same locality in coll. NRMS, ZSM, NHMW and NÖL (coll.Schwingenschuss). Genital slides: 3 Boursin 358, Varga 2433, 2685, 2751, 6058, 6067, 7763, 7993, 7994, Ƥ Varga 7988, 7989, 7990.

Other material. In addition to the material cited above, a large series of specimens of X. cacumena are known from N-Iran (Alborz Mts, Shahkuh) and from both the Iranian and Turkmenian sides of the Kopet-Dagh Mts (coll. HNHM, coll. Fábián, Gyulai, G. Ronkay and Z. Varga). These specimens are externally slightly darker and larger than the types from the Zagros Mts. It should be noted however, that Brandt also included some specimens from Khorassan (env. Meshed, Kouh-i-Binaloud, 3300 m, coll. ZSM) in the type series. In the genital structures, however, they do not show any differences to specimens from the Zagros Mts (Plate 2, Figs. 7–10).

Taxonomic notes. Xenophysa cacumena can be externally differentiated from X. junctimacula mostly by the less pectinated antennae of male (see: the note of Corti on the label of a specimen in the ZSM: “1 3, Schahkuh, Funke 98, “ var. andere Fühler Corti det.”, ZSM 458 „ Estimata cacumena Brdt ”, Boursin det. MM 358.), narrower shape and lighter, more ochreous brown colouration of the forewings and lighter, more whitish coloration of the hind wings and of the underside. The male genitalia show numerous recognisable differences. Uncus much longer and slender, bilateral hook on the apex is reduced, bilateral lobes of tegumen larger and more elongate, costal “hump” of valve more extended and lobate, and apical lobe of valve much more rounded with a very short apicolateral spine (Plate 7, Figs 38a, b). Aedeagus slightly longer and more slender than in X. junctimacula and X. junctimacula huberi (Plate 6, Figs 33a, b), ampulla not bulbed. The subbasal diverticulum of vesica slightly shorter and broader than in X. junctimacula . Female genitalia with less sclerotised, shorter and more symmetrical lateral arms of the antrum. Ductus bursae and corpus bursae do not show specific characters. The correct differentiation of the partially sympatric X. junctimacula and X. cacumena was hitherto hindered by the lost male syntype of the former specimen. The single old male specimen from “Shakuh” (leg. Funke, coll. ZSM) was erroneously considered ( Varga 1989) as the male “topotypoid” of X. junctimacula , overseeing the correct identification of Boursin (“ Ogygia cacumena Brdt. , det Boursin”). Recent surveys have, however, demonstrated that the two species co-occur in the Alborz Mts. Thus, the male of X. junctimacula could be identified by comparing the recent material (mostly in coll. Gyulai, Miskolc, Hungary) with the old museum specimens including the insufficiently labelled but possibly authentic male specimen which externally completely agrees with the holotype female. The externally slightly differentiated, isolated population of X. cacumena in the Hindukush Mts. does not show any distinctive characters.