Megacraspedus majorella Caradja, 1920

Huemer, Peter & Karsholt, Ole, 2018, Revision of the genus Megacraspedus Zeller, 1839, a challenging taxonomic tightrope of species delimitation (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae), ZooKeys 800, pp. 1-278: 117-118

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Megacraspedus majorella Caradja, 1920


Megacraspedus majorella Caradja, 1920 

Megacraspedus imparellus  (? var.) majorella  Caradja, 1920: 117.

Examined material.

Lectotype ♂, “Alai” "LECTOTYPE Megacraspedus imparellus v. majorellus Car. ♂ des. Dr A. Popescu - Gori" “176434” "CIS-Korea Microlep. 4217 Megacraspedus majorella Car. - Alai, Himalaya K. T. Park ’96” (MNGA) [photographs examined]. Paralectotype ♂, same data, but without genitalia slide (MNGA) [photographs examined].


Adult. Male (Figure 95). Wingspan 17-21 mm. Segment 2 of labial palpus with scale brush longer than segment 3, blackish brown on outer surface, whitish grey on upper surface; segment 3 shorter than segment 2, whitish. Antenna indistinctly ringed black and light grey-brown. Head, thorax and tegula as forewing. Forewing light grey-brown mottled with black, especially in apical third; black dots in fold at 2/5, at 3/5 in middle of wing and at end of cell; scattered black scales forming an interrupted line along termen; fringes whitish grey around apex, light grey towards tornus. Hindwing grey with light grey fringes.

Female. Unknown.

Variation. None from the few examined specimens.

Male genitalia (Figure 223). Uncus broadly sub-rectangular, slightly longer than broad, almost width of posterior edge of tegumen, apical corners weakly rounded; gnathos hook moderately stout, approximately 1.5 times length of uncus, bent at about one-quarter, distal part nearly straight, apex pointed; anterior margin of tegumen with broad and moderately shallow excavation, medially with additional small emargination, curved sclerotised ridges joined medially in anterior part; pedunculi moderately small, rounded; valva digitate, weakly curved, extending to about middle of uncus, distally slightly narrowing, apex weakly rounded; saccular area without separated sacculus; posterior margin of vinculum with shallow medial emargination; saccus sub-triangular, basally broad, distal half tapered to weakly pointed apex, posterior margin arched, sinusoid, without medial emargination, medial part smooth, without sclerotised ridge, lateral sclerites well developed; phallus straight, bulbous coecum, distal two-thirds slender, with sclerotised dorsal and ventral zones, medially with small sclerotised patch, ductus ejaculatorius with slender, double-twisted interior sclerotisation.

Female genitalia. Unknown.


Megacraspedus majorella  is characterised by its light greyish brown forewings with three black dots and an interrupted black line along the termen. It is similar to M. imparellus  (Figs 228-230), which has lighter forewings and labial palps, and M. pacificus  sp. n. (Figure 149), which has the margin of the costa white. It also resembles M. latiuncus  sp. n. (Figure 96), which has longer labial palps and lighter forewings with white veins, but without distinct black dots. The male genitalia are similar to M. latiuncus  sp. n. (Figure 224) but differ in the more slender uncus and gnathos hook whereas other potential diagnostic characters cannot be compared due to different preparation techniques.

Molecular data.

Not available, no specimen was available for barcoding.


Kyrgyzstan (Alai Mountains).


Host plant and early stages are unknown. No specific collecting data of the type-series were published.


Megacraspedus imparellus  (? var.) majorella  was described from two males from “Alai” (=Alai Mountains in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), which were stated to be larger and having the two dots in the disc more separated compared with European M. imparellus  ( Caradja 1920). A lectotype (without abdomen) was published by Popescu-Gorj (1992). Park (1996) figured the genitalia (presumably of the paralectotype), compared it with those of M. lanceolellus  and stated that M. majorella  represents a distinct species. The description of M. majorella  is based on photographs of the lectotype and a paralectotype. Due to the traditionally mounted slide of the lectotype and the picture quality several potentially diagnostic characters cannot be determined with certainty.