Cacochroa permixtella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854)
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4683.2.2 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:3DA6AA04-4E2F-4509-8B01-D976A2A9CE82 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3797669 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/6D73878B-FF8D-FFA4-9DBF-AF5FEED5FCCC |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Cacochroa permixtella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854) |
| status |
|
Typification of Cacochroa permixtella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854)
The species was originally described as Anchinia permixtella Herrich-Schäffer, 1854 . In an effort to clarify its identity a search for type material was made. Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer was a German physician and entomologist who lived in Regensburg. His Microlepidoptera are known to be present in several institutions including MNHU, ZSM and NHMUK but enquiries indicated that none of these had possible type material, although there were specimens of C. permixtella in NHMUK in the collections of other lepidopterists of the 1850s. NHMV was also investigated but had no specimens with any evident connection to Herrich-Schäffer but it does have specimens collected by Mann in 1851 and 1863 from Brussa (now Bursa) in Turkey.
In Herrich-Schäffer’s (1854) description of Anchinia permixtella the species name is followed by ‘Metzn.’ and following the description the distribution given is ‘Aus der Wienergegend’ [From the Vienna district]. There is no mention of Mann.
‘Metzn.’ refers to Alois Metzner. He was a collector who lived at Frankfurt an der Oder, Germany, and died in 1861. According to Nye & Fletcher (1991: 51) Anchinia permixtella was a Metzner manuscript name made nomenclaturally available by Herrich-Schäffer. Ole Karsholt (pers. comm.) has suggested a different interpretation. It was common practise at that time for informal names to be used within the European microlepidopterists community for undescribed species. Thus Anchinia permixtella was indeed described by Herrich-Schäffer, but he referred to the species that had already acquired its name from Metzner. Which interpretation is correct is open to conjecture but it should be noted that Herrich-Schäffer does not mention Mann for this species although he does in other instances (e.g. Carposina berberidella Herrich-Schäffer, 1854 ). This together with the absence of type material of C. permixtella would suggest that he simply published a description written by Metzner.
Josef Mann was a Viennese entomologist and dealer who collected in southern Europe, mainly on either side of the Adriatic Sea, but in some years travelled as far as Turkey. His first expedition in 1846 was to Tuscany. New species from this expedition were described by Philipp Christoph Zeller ( Zeller, 1850) and Zeller continued to describe new species from Mann’s subsequent expeditions. Metzner had been Zeller’s informal tutor in entomology at Frankfurt an der Oder. For a time, Zeller was a primary school teacher at Glogau (now Głogów in Poland), but later he taught in a secondary school in Frankfurt an der Oder. Zeller and Metzner were both in Frankfurt between 1851 when Mann travelled to Turkey and 1854 when Herrich-Schäffer published the description of A. permixtella . Thus it appears possible that Metzner had access to Mann’s material through Zeller. Mann’s 1851 material was also available to other lepidopterists of that era since specimens are present not only in NHMV but also in the Wocke collection in ZIAN and there are specimens collected by Mann in 1863 in the collections of Frey, Zeller and Stainton in NHMUK.
In order to resolve the confusion that has arisen as to the identity of A. permixtella , with figured male and female genitalia belonging to different species, a type specimen is needed. Herrich-Schäffer did not designate a holotype, nor have searches in institutions that are known to possess Herrich-Schäffer material produced any type material. This leaves the options of designating a lectotype or a neotype.As far as we are aware the only specimens of permixtella available in 1854 were those collected by Mann in Turkey in 1851. Since there is only circumstantial evidence that Herrich-Schäffer was referring to Mann’s specimens, it is not appropriate to choose one of these as lectotype. This leaves only the option of choosing a neotype for Anchinia permixtella Herrich-Schäffer, 1854 .
ICZN (1999) Rule 75 lays down strict conditions for designating a neotype. A neotype is necessary to clarify the status and type locality of A. permixtella , both of which are confused and because no other type material exists. According to ICZN (1999) Rule 75.3.6 a neotype should be chosen from as near the original locality as possible. That locality, ‘Aus der Wienergegend’ is puzzling. The species has never been recorded again from Austria (Peter Huemer, pers. comm.), although it remains in the Austrian checklist ( Huemer 2013). The nearest known localities for any Cacochroa are on the coast of Croatia. Without evidence to the contrary we regard the original location given as erroneous. Both Cacochroa rosetella and C. corfuella occur on the coast of Croatia but C. rosetella at Biograd is nearest to Vienna. If a specimen of C. rosetella were chosen as neotype of C. permixtella , then C. rosetella would become a junior synonym of C. permixtella , leaving the species collected by Mann in Turkey without a name. A similar problem would occur if a specimen of C. corfuella was chosen. It is also appropriate to consider what material was available to lepidopterists at the time of the description of A. permixtella . There were a number of specimens of permixtella collected in Turkey by Mann in 1851. The earliest collected specimens of the species treated in this paper as C. rosetella were collected by Staudinger in south France in 1866 (specimen in ZIAN). C. corfuella was not collected until 1978. From this it follows that the original 1854 concept of Anchinia permixtella did not include more than one species. Complications only arose later when material of C. rosetella was also referred to C. permixtella . Therefore, to avoid unnecessary nomenclatural complications we hereby choose as neotype a female collected by Mann at Brussa, Turkey in 1863 which is in the collection of NHMV. It has the label` Neotypus MV 19571 female’. An 1863 specimen has been chosen, rather than one from 1851 because it is in better condition. The neotype is chosen in order to stabilise the use of the name permixtella Herrich-Schäffer, 1854 . Lvovsky (1981) figured female genitalia of a specimen from Brussa as permixtella , so this choice of a female neotype preserves the accepted use of the names of both permixtella and rosetella and in consequence allows the name rosetella to be used for the misidentified male figured by Lvovsky (1981) as permixtella . This untangles the confusion implicit in Jacques Nel’s observation that Cacochroa in France has females with the genitalia of the Portuguese holotype of rosetella and males with genitalia as figured for permixtella by Lvovsky (1981), since these males can now be attributed to rosetella .
Description and diagnosis of the chosen neotype follows below. A consequence of this designation of a neotype is that the male of permixtella is undescribed. There is also considerable uncertainty regarding the true distribution of this species and of rosetella .
Diagnosis. Externally C. permixtella resembles Rosetea species, but differs fundamentally in genitalia. In the male the extraordinary development of the vinculum-saccus and the structure of the valva very clearly separates it from all Rosetea species. In the female the absence of a setose flap adjacent to the ostium and the shape of the signum are differentiating characters.
Description ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 A–B). Wingspan 13−15 mm. Face creamy white, vertex grey; labial palpus segment 3 onethird length of segment 2, segment 2 whitish buff on inner side, grey on outer side, overlaid fuscous towards apex, segment 3 whitish buff, basal part dark fuscous, apex black; antenna grey, ringed dark fuscous, each segment with a fuscous spot on upper side. Thorax grey. Forewing ochreous, almost entirely overlaid dark grey, fold ochreous; basal quarter in costal half paler than rest of wing; raised black scales forming 3-5 dots or spots in disc from one-third to one-half; a series of blackish dots between veins along termen; fringe grey. Hindwing grey to dark grey.
Male and female genitalia: see description of genus, above ( Figs. 2 View FIGURE 2 , 4A View FIGURE 4 ).
Biology. Adults have been taken from close to sea-level up to 2200 m, in late April, in June and from end of July to early September. While this suggests the possibility of two or even three generations, there is only one April record and two from June. The larva and host-plant of permixtella are unknown. All published records of larvae previously referred to this species actually belong to Rosetea rosetella .
Distribution ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 5 ). Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece (Thrace) and Turkey. Records given for this species in Fauna Europaea ( Lvovsky, 2011) for Spain, mainland France, Corsica, mainland Italy, Sardinia and Crete belong to other species. The record for Austria is treated as erroneous.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.