Mirocastnia, J. Y. Miller, 1980

González, Jorge M., Thöny, Hubert & Worthy, Robert, 2024, A review of the genus Mirocastnia J. Y. Miller, 1980 (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) with records of recently collected specimens, Zootaxa 5418 (3), pp. 240-254 : 246-248

canis (Lathy, 1923)

“Schaefferia canis, sp. n.” Lathy, 1923: Annals and Magazine of natural History (9) 12 (68): 225–226. (Figs. 3, 4 ).

Type material: Described from a single female collected by Watkins (Figs. 3A, B). This specimen is the holotype by monotypy, at the time of description it was in the collection of Madame Aimée de Horrack Fournier (1876–1952), it is now in NHMUK. The holotype was in all probability collected by Henry George (‘Harry’) Watkins (1886–1933) or, less probably, by his brother Casimir Watkins (1888–1955) (G. Lamas, pers. comm.).

Type locality: The locality label reads: Rio Perené, Peru (Watkins). This is in the Chanchamayo region of Junín department, Peru.

Taxonomic status: A subspecies of M. pyrrhopygoides (Houlbert, 1917) stat. nov. Lathy (1923) originally described it as a species in the genus Schaefferia Houlbert, 1918, following Rothschild (1919). Miller (1980) transferred it to her new genus Mirocastnia , a combination subsequently followed by Miller (1995) and Lamas (1995).

Male genitalia: ( Figs. 7A–C ) Despite the size of most specimens, the male genitalia look miniaturised when compared with castniids of most other genera. Saccus is reduced. Valvae elongate along costa with a prominent cleft along sacculus. Juxta is sclerotised. Aedeagus sclerotised, moderately curved, barely contorted. We did not examine the female genitalia, but it is worth noting that Miller (1980) separated M. canis from the other two taxa in the group by stating that “The pleural setal patch dorsad is more prominent and denser than in either smalli or pyrrhopygoides with the sclerotised pattern associated with the ostium bursae diagnostic” and also “Additional setae are found along lamella postvaginalis than in either pyrrhopygoides or smalli . ”

Distribution: When Miller (1980) described the genus, only the type of canis was known to her, this was collected in Junín department, Peru but no subsequent specimens are known to have been collected in the region of the type locality. In recent years a reasonable number of dealers’ specimens have been available from Huánuco in Peru ( Figs. 3G–J , 4 ), but this seems to be the only area where it is collected in any numbers. Recently, some specimens have been available from San Martín department (Howard Grisham, pers. comm.), and RW obtained several specimens from Cuzco department, Peru ( Figs. 3K–N ) and Amazonas department, Peru ( Figs. 3C–F ); Cuzco and Amazonas seem to be major range extensions. There is one male from extreme northern Amazonas province, Peru, near the Ecuadorean border, in MUSM, but this is considered to represent ssp. pyrrhopygoides due to the geographical proximity to populations of this subspecies.

The subspecies therefore seems to be restricted to Peru and is currently only known from Amazonas, San Martín, Huánuco, Junín, and Cuzco departments ( Fig. 5 ).

Discussion: When writing his original description Lathy (1923) only had the female holotype of subcoerulea ( Rothschild, 1919) ( Figs. 2G, H ) with which to compare his specimen, more material is now available for comparison. The differences given by Lathy are that the abdomen of subcoerulea is entirely black whereas that of canis is white below with the anal segments orange. The abdomens on both specimens are now missing, presumably removed by Miller for genitalia dissection for her 1980 work, they have since been returned and dissection labels have been added. The likelihood is that the subcoerulea abdomen was only black due to heavy greasing, a very common occurrence in Castniidae . The other difference that Lathy gave is that subcoerulea lacks the marginal red patches on the dorsal hindwing. Indeed, the canis type does have faint rust-red submarginal patches between the veins on the hindwing ( Fig. 3A ). This was considered to be the defining characteristic of the species, but recent material makes it seem unlikely to be anything more than an individual aberrant form. We have seen no specimens from Huánuco that have this feature but some females from Cuzco exhibit it, albeit much less pronounced.

Miller (1980) further states that “The very prominent iridescent powder blue patch basad on hindwing below conveniently separates canis from pyrrhopygoides and smalli ”. This does seem to be the defining feature of females as all specimens from Peru have this large powder-blue patch on the ventral hindwing ( Figs. 3B, F, J, N ). Specimens of M. pyrrhopygoides and M. smalli seem to have a much-reduced patch or merely a sprinkling of blue scales ( Figs. 1D, F , 2D, H, L ), although this can sometimes be obscured by greasing of the very few specimens known. It also seems that the forewing transverse semi-hyaline band is narrower than in the other subspecies.

Even though the male of this subspecies has not been mentioned in the literature before, it is now quite wellknown. Males from Peru do show consistent small differences from M. p. pyrrhopygoides from Ecuador and Colombia. In fact, they are more similar in appearance to smalli from Panama than they are to pyrrhopygoides sharing all the main characteristics (see smalli ), except that they are usually considerably larger.

The recent dealers’ material from Peru has all been marketed as M. pyrrhopygoides . The female feature of the ventral basal blue patch pointed out by Miller (1980), and the slight differences in the male phenotypes, show that all known Peruvian specimens, with the exception of the Amazonas specimen from the border with Ecuador, are in fact ssp. canis .

A particular feature of this subspecies is the very wide size range in specimens of both sexes. In the series from Huánuco in coll. RW, forewing lengths range from 21mm to 29mm for males and 22mm to 35mm for females ( Fig. 4 ), this could be a result of the altitude at which the specimens were collected.

The taxon was so named because Lathy (1923) thought that the pattern of the pale blue markings on the dorsal hindwing of the holotype resembles the pattern of a dog’s head, similar to the forewing of the pierid genus Zerene Hübner, [1819] .

Material examined: 19 males and 21 females were examined for this study: PERU: ♀ HT Schaefferia canis Lathy ♀ Specimen typicum, Río Perené , Peru, Watkins, 60.25., Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus., NHMUK010605301 , vial NHMUK010402746 ; 1♁ Huanuco, 07/2012, Vinciguerra coll. BMNH ( E) 2023-38 NHMUK015548011 ; 1♀ Huanuco, 03/2011, Vinciguerra coll. BMNH ( E) 2023-38 NHMUK015548053 ; 1♀ Tingo Maria, 650m, Huanuco, Peru, Las Palmas , 27.08.04, Vinciguerra coll. BMNH ( E) 2023-38 NHMUK015548095 ; 1♀ Carpish, 1500–2000 masl, Huanuco, September 2006, Vinciguerra coll. BMNH ( E) 2023-38 NHMUK015548137 ( NHMUK) ; 1♁ Tingo María, Huánuco, 700m., August 2008 ; 1♁, 1♀ idem, August 2011 ; 1♁ Carpish Pass, Huánuco, 10-2010 ; 1♀ Contamana, Río Ucayali, Loreto, 10/2009 (this locality is doubtful as the altitude and habitat in this region is not suitable for the species) ( DC) ; 2♁♁, 3♀♀ Nueva Cajamarca, 125 km NW of Tarapoto , San Martín, 1100m., March 2020, (5.95S 77.32W) ; 2♁♁ Mallqui, 50 km S of Tingo Maria, Huánuco, 1150m., October 2016, (9.36S 76.02W) ; 1♁ idem, March 2018 ( HG) ; 3♁♁, 2♀♀ Rodríguez de Mendoza , Amazonas, 1800m., December 2019, 06° 24´S 77° 26´W ; 1♀ Tingo María, Huánuco, 700m., August 2007 ; 1♁, 2♀♀ idem, August 2008 ; 2♀♀ Mallqui, Huánuco, September 2013 ; 1♁, 1♀ Carpish, Huánuco, October 2010 ; 2♁♁ idem, August 2011 ; 1♁, 3♀♀ Patria, Valle Cosñipata , Cuzco, 657m., July 2019, 12°58´11” S, 71°25´19”W ; 2♁♁ Quincemil, Valle Marcapata, Cuzco , 980m., July 2019, 13°15’05”S 70°46’17”W ( RW) ; 1♀ Peru, Huánuco, Tingo María, 2300m [obviously, this elevation must refer to Carpish, not to “Tingo Maria” (G.Lamas, pers. comm.)], iii.[20]12, M. Simon, MGCL Accession No. 2012- 16, DNA Voucher LEP-79395, UF FLMNH MGCL 1096935 ( MGCL) ; 1♀ Huánuco, 2000–2500m., XI/2003 ; 1♀ Carpish Pass, Huánuco , 2400m., IX/2011 (Anon).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Dorsal and Ventral view of selected Mirocastnia pyrrhopygoides smalli specimens. A, B: ♁ Holotype, Panama (MGCL); C, D: ♀ Paratype, Panama (MGCL); E, F: ♀ Costa Rica (MNCR). Scale: 10 mm.

FIGURE 2. Dorsal and ventral view of selected Mirocastnia pyrrhopygoides pyrrhopygoides specimens. A, B: ♁ Valle del Cauca, Colombia (LC) (not to scale); C, D: ♀ Risaralda, Colombia (JS); E: ♁ Lectotype, Zaruma, Ecuador (NHMUK); F: ♁ Paralectotype, Zaruma, Ecuador (NHMUK); G, H: ♀ Holotype Castnia (Schaefferia) subcoerulea, Ecuador (NHMUK); I, J: ♁ Esmeraldas, Ecuador (RW); K, L: ♀ Otongachi, Ecuador (HT). Scale: 10 mm.

FIGURE 3. Dorsal and ventral view of selected Mirocastnia pyrrhopygoides canis specimens. A, B: ♀ Holotype, Junín Dept., Peru (NHMUK); C, D: ♁ Amazonas, Peru (RW); E, F: ♀ Amazonas, Peru (RW); G, H: ♁ Huánuco, Peru (RW); I, J: ♀ Huánuco, Peru (RW); K, L: ♁ Cuzco, Peru (RW); M, N: ♀ Cuzco, Peru (RW). Scale: 10 mm.

FIGURE 4. Size comparison of specimens of Mirocastnia pyrrhopygoides canis collected in Huánuco, Peru (RW). Scale: 10 mm.

FIGURE 5. Distribution of the different taxa in the genus Mirocastnia in Central and South America.

FIGURE 7. Male genital capsule, dextral and sinistral view of aedeagus of the different taxa in the genus Mirocastnia. A–C: M. pyrrhopygoides canis; D, E: M. pyrrhopygoides pyrrhopygoides; F, G: M. pyrrhopygoides smalli (E–G: from Miller, 1980). Scale: 1 mm.