Athis inca inca ( Walker, 1854 )

García-Díaz, José De Jesús, Espinoza-Sanabria, Bernardo A., Worthy, Robert, González, Jorge M., Janzen, Daniel H. & Hallwachs, Winnie, 2024, Synopsis of the Castniidae (Lepidoptera) of Costa Rica, Zootaxa 5481 (2), pp. 151-202 : 175

13. Athis inca inca ( Walker, 1854)

( Figs. 5A, 5B , 10J , 12B ) (BIN: BOLD:AAJ9547)

Castnia inca Walker, 1854 ; Walker, 1854. List Spec. Lepid. Coll. Brit. Mus. Vol. 1, p. 24.

Castnia inca f. hondurana ; Strand, 1913, in Seitz. Die Gross-Schmett. der Erde vol. 6, p. 11.

Aciloa inca ; Houlbert, 1918. Étud. Lép. Comp. 15, pp. 64, 438, 691, 723, fig. 152, pl. CDLI, fig. 3810.

Castnia inca inca ; Miller, 1972. Bull. Allyn Mus. 6, p. 4, figs. 3, 7, 18–21, 28–31.

Athis inca inca ; Miller, 1995, in Heppner. Castnioidea: Castniidae : Castniinae , Checklist part 2, Atlas Neo. Lep., p. 134. Athis inca inca ; Lamas, 1995. Revta. Per. Ent. 37, p. 76.

Athis inca ; Moraes & Duarte, 2014. Zoo. Jour. Linn. Soc. 170 (2), p. 29.

General comments. This species has, along with Athis delecta , the northernmost distribution in the genus ( Niño-Maldonado et al. 2013; García-Díaz et al. 2022). It was described as Castnia inca Walker, 1854 from three specimens from Mexico, Venezuela, and Honduras ( Walker 1854; Miller 1972; González 2004; Van den Berghe et al. 2020). The cotype (paralectotype after Fletcher & Nye (1982)) from Venezuela, labeled “ Castnia inca . X-5 Venez.” and part of “M. Becker’s Collection” at NHMUK, is indeed Athis inca inca . However, it is highly doubtful that it came from Venezuela, where this subspecies has not been found (except for that single specimen) (González 2004). It is possibly a case of mislabeling. However, before the description of A. axaqua González & Fernández-Yépez, 1992 , individuals of this species were commonly mentioned as “ Castnia inca ” by Venezuelan entomologists ( González & Fernández-Yépez 1992; González 2004).

Lamas (1995) pointed out that the type locality of Athis inca inca is Honduras after the lectotype designation by Fletcher & Nye (1982). Houlbert (1918) placed it in Aciloa Houlbert, 1918 and Miller (1986) transferred it to Athis . Miller (1972) studied the “ inca complex” clarifying similarities and differences between Athis inca inca , Athis inca orizabensis ( Strand, 1913) and Athis clitarcha ( Westwood, 1877) , and describing Athis inca dincadu ( Miller, 1972) from the Panama Canal Zone and Athis flavimaculata ( Miller, 1972) from the Mexican Pacific slope. Currently, four subspecies are known: A. i. inca , A. i. orizabensis , A. i. dincadu , and A. i. briareus (Houlbert, 1917) ( Miller 1995; Lamas 1995).

This medium-sized species is sexually dimorphic. Dorsally, the male forewing has a diagonal band that divides the wing into two sections, it runs from the middle of the anal margin to near the apical region; the base-color of the forewing is brown, slightly paler on the inner half of the wing; 2–3 translucent circular spots appear in the apical region; in the discal region there is a dark quadrangular maculation with a pale center; 1 or 2 postdiscal spots appear on one side of the diagonal band and small semicircular spots are present in the submarginal region. The base-color of the hindwings is orange; a brown band appears in the post-basal region and another blackish-brown band in the postdiscal region, which runs from the costa to the anal angle; the marginal region is orange, and the veins stand out by their blackish-brown color in the submarginal region. Ventrally, males have a wing pattern similar to the dorsal surface; however, the base-color on both wings is pale orange, and the spots and bands on both wings are slightly lighter than dorsally. The females are easily distinguishable from the males because they are larger, the apical region of the forewings is slightly rounded, and they have a markedly paler base color on the forewing, making the spots stand out.

Despite the descriptions provided by Miller (1972), it is difficult to separate some specimens of Athis inca from Athis clitarcha , since both species tend to be variable, and their phenotypes are similar. This has caused some confusion, as shown in Chacón & Montero (2007) who illustrated a male of A. i. inca as A. clitarcha . Therefore, a study is necessary to complement Miller’s (1972) work and illustrate the variability of both the wing and genital patterns of the two species, helping to clarify their respective distributions.

Ecology and behavior. This taxon is diurnal and flies in localities with a high degree of humidity in Mexico and Central America with an abundance of Tillandsia spp. ( Bromeliaceae ). Males are territorial and are frequently seen along sunny paths or watercourses, where they repeatedly patrol the vicinity of their perching area searching for females with which to mate or to drive away other males or butterfly species that might invade their territory. González et al. (2008) listed a specimen collected “inside a butterfly trap with fermented fruit” in Soteapan, Veracruz, Mexico. This case seems to be a coincidence since no other specimen of this subspecies had been reported being collected that way.

Distribution and biogeography. According to Miller (1972), Athis inca inca is distributed from Mexico to Costa Rica. Based on the material studied and presented herein, it has been collected in the following Costa Rican cantons: Alajuela: San Carlos, Upala; Cartago: Jiménez, Turrialba; Guanacaste: Bagaces; Heredia: Sarapiquí; Limón: Pococí; Puntarenas: Coto Brus, Golfito; San José: Vázquez de Coronado. According to the biogeographic provinces of the Neotropical region proposed by Morrone et al. (2022), in Costa Rica A. i. inca flies in localities that belong to the Guatuso-Talamanca and Puntarenas-Chiriquí provinces of the Pacific dominion in the Brazilian subregion.

Figures

FIGURE 5. A–B: Athis inca inca; A: ♂, Prov. Heredia, Sarapiquí, Est. Biol. La Tirimbina, 167m, 17ABR2012, C. Miranda, Colecta Libre, L_N_266268_523359 #108029, INB0004386557, MNCR-A4386557 (MNCR); B: ♀, Prov. Heredia, Sarapiquí, Est. Biol. La Tirimbina, Mirador, 167m, 3MAY2011, I. Chacón, L_N_266268_523359. #102187, INB0004284659, MNCR- A4284659 (MNCR); C–D: Athis clitarcha; C: ♂, Monteverde, Costa Rica, 3-2012 (DC); D: ♀, Panama, Volcano de Chiriqui, 5–9000 ft., (Watson) (NHMUK). Scale bar = 2cm.

FIGURE 10. A–B: Amauta procera; A: ♀, Golfito, Puntarenas, 19-II-2002 (photo: Gernot Kunz); B: ♂, Sarapiquí, Heredia, 06-III-2014 (photo: Matthew Grube); C: ♀, Prometheus zagraea zagraea, Osa, Puntarenas, 02-III-2012 (photo: GringoCurt); D–E: Divana diva diva; D: ♂, Puntarenas, Puntarenas, 27-V-2018 (photo: David Curlis); E: ♀, San Ramón, Alajuela, 27-V- 2010 (photo: John B. Schneider); F–G: Athis palatinus staudingeri; F: ♀, Golfito, Puntarenas, 08-II-2021 (photo: Chatelle Taylor); G: ♂, Aguirre, Puntarenas, 16-I-2020 (photo: Ted Armstrong); H: ♂, Athis analibiae, Talamanca, Limón, 09-V-2023 (photo: Heiner Ziegler); I: ♀, Athis clitarcha, Coto Brus, Puntarenas, 14-III-2020 (photo: Casey Owen); J: ♂, Athis inca inca, Sarapiquí, Heredia, 26-X-2018 (photo: Laurens Halsey).

FIGURE 12. Distribution maps of the genera Amauta (A), Athis (B, C), Corybantes and Mirocastnia (D), Divana (E) and Prometheus (F) in Costa Rica.