Pseudopostega cyrneochalcopepla Nel & Varenne, 2012

Huemer, Peter & Van Nieukerken, Erik J., 2021, Identity of some recently described Lepidoptera from France-re-assessed with DNA barcodes and morphology, Zootaxa 4941 (3), pp. 301-337 : 306

Pseudopostega cyrneochalcopepla Nel & Varenne, 2012

Pseudopostega cyrneochalcopepla Nel & Varenne, 2012a: 11

Examined material. Paratype Ƌ: France, Corse du Sud, Pertusato , Bonifacio, 80 m, uv, 24.V.2011, Th. Varenne, genitalia slide JN no 24980 ( RCJN) .

BOLD Specimen ID RMNH.INS.550071; BOLD Sequence ID NEPTA1366-15.

BIN: BOLD:ACU8218

Identity Pseudopostega chalcopepla (Walsingham, 1908) , synonymised by van Nieukerken et al. (2016).

Remarks. Pseudopostega cyrneochalcopepla was described from two males with identical collection data ( Nel & Varenne 2012a). We studied and sequenced the paratype, resulting in a full barcode, with a distance of 4.3% to its nearest neighbour, continental P. chalcopepla (Walsingham, 1908) . Despite this difference, the species was synonymised with P. chalcopepla on the basis of the virtual identical genitalia and external characters (van Nieukerken et al. 2016). This was challenged by Nel & Varenne (2016c) who detailed additional morphological differences. However, after studying a larger number of specimens, we still failed to see differences. Nel & Varenne (2012a, 2016c) gave the wingspan of 10 mm as a difference, but van Nieukerken et al. (2004a) gave a range of 10.5– 14 mm, which is hardly different. The number of pecten sensilla is another character mentioned by these authors: 32–34 in cyrneochalcopepla versus 43–49 in chalcopepla . However, we examined several specimens from continental France with 36–37 sensilla, showing a much larger range for this character. Other characters used are variable even within populations. Following van Nieukerken et al. (2016) we prefer to keep the island populations within one species, until more is known of these and other island populations. Island populations often have large barcoding gaps to mainland populations, which taken alone is in our opinion not sufficient for species status.