Quadrus (Cyrna) zora ( Evans, 1953 ) Zhang & Cong & Shen & Song & Grishin, 2023

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Genomics-based taxonomic rearrangement of Achlyodini and Carcharodini (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Pyrginae), Insecta Mundi 2023 (16), pp. 1-33 : 10

Quadrus (Cyrna) zora ( Evans, 1953) , new combination

Inspection of the holotype of Bolla zora Evans, 1953 (type locality in Ecuador), which is a female, reveals that it does not belong to Bolla Mabille, 1903 (type species Bolla pullata Mabille, 1903 , treated as a junior subjective synonym of Staphylus imbras Godman and Salvin, 1896 ), but instead is a species of Quadrus Lindsey, 1925 (type species Papilio cerialis Stoll, 1782 ) similar to Quadrus (Cyrna) calavius Godman and Salvin, 1895 . On the dark-brown forewing, it possesses three subapical white dots in an arc, the middle dot smallest (the shape, size, and location of these dots suggest Quadrus ), and two faint bands from costa to inner margin, postdiscal and subapical. Therefore, we propose a new combination Quadrus (Cyrna) zora ( Evans, 1953) .

Quadrus (Quadrus) ophia (A. Butler, 1870) is a species distinct from Quadrus (Quadrus) lugubris (R. Felder, 1869)

The genomic tree reveals that Achlyodes ophia Butler, 1870 (type locality in Venezuela), currently treated as a subspecies of Quadrus lugubris (R. Felder, 1869) (type locality in Mexico: Veracruz), is not monophyletic with it and instead is sister to Quadrus truncata (Hewitson, 1870) (type locality in Ecuador) ( Fig. 1 ). Moreover, genetic differentiation between Q. lugubris ophia and Q. lugubris lugubris is at the level characteristic of distinct species, e.g., their COI barcodes differ by 3.5% (23 bp). Therefore, we propose that Quadrus (Quadrus) ophia (A. Butler, 1870) , restored status, is a species distinct from Quadrus (Quadrus) lugubris (R. Felder, 1869) .

Figures

Figure 1. The nuclear genome-based phylogeny of Achlyodini (continued in Fig. 3). Only the segment of the tree corresponding to the subtribe Pythonidina is shown. The bottom segment of the tree (subtribe Achlyodinia) is replaced with four dots and is shown in Fig. 3. The tree is constructed from protein-coding regions in autosomes. The tree is rooted with Carcharodus alceae (NVG-18087F02, GenBank barcode OR665734), not displayed. Statistical support values are shown by nodes. For each specimen, its name adopted in this work is given first, and a previously used name is listed in square brackets (if different), supplemented with the DNA sample number, type status (HT holotype, LT lectotype, ST syntype, T type, PT paratype, and PLT paralectotype), general locality and collection year (“old” means collection year known, but likely before 1950, mostly around the turn of 20th century). See Table S1 in the Supplemental file (Zhang et al. 2023d) for additional data about these specimens. Synonyms are given in parentheses preceded by “=”. The type status refers to this synonym if the synonym name is provided. Names of genera (larger font, more prominent tree branches, on the left) and subgenera (smaller font, less prominent tree branches, on the right) are shown by the clades corresponding to these taxa. New genus-group names are highlighted in yellow. Branches leading to the type species (or their closest sequenced relatives) of valid genus-group names are marked with large black dots and refer to the subgenus (in parenthesis) given in the corresponding name, or the genus if the subgenus is not specified. The same notations are used in Fig. 3–6. Names of taxa that before this work were placed in genera Pythonides (red), Gindanes (cyan), Quadrus (green), Ouleus (blue), and Zera (purple) are shown in color to illustrate rampant violations of monophyly in these taxa, corrected here.