Megacraspedus dejectella (Staudinger, 1859)

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: 78-79

publication ID

publication LSID

persistent identifier

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Megacraspedus dejectella (Staudinger, 1859)


Megacraspedus dejectella (Staudinger, 1859) 

Gelechia dejectella  Staudinger, 1859: 242.

Examined material.

Lectotype ♂, designated by Huemer and Tokár (2000: 2), “LECTO-TYPE” ”27/4” "Granada m. “Origin.” "Lectotype ♂ Gelechia dejectella Stgr teste. K. Sattler, 1986" "GU 01/968 ♂ P. Huemer" "LECTOTYPE ♂ Gelechia dejectella Staudinger des. Huemer, 2002" ( ZMHU). Paralectotype ♂, “PARA-LECTO-TYPE” “Origin.” "Paralectotype ♂ Gelechia dejectella Stgr teste. K. Sattler, 1986" "Ex coll. 2/2 Staudinger" "dejectella Stdgr." "Gen. pr. Z. Tokár ♂ No 4456 [in tube]" "Megacraspedus dejectellus Z. Tokár, 1999" ( ZMHU). Non-type material. No collecting data. 1 ♂, coll. Staudinger ( ZMHU).


Adult. Male (Figure 60). Wingspan 11 mm. Segment 2 of same length as segment 3 [labial palpi of all three type spcimens completely denuded]. Antennal scape without pecten; flagellum blackish brown, indistinctly lighter ringed. Head whitish; thorax and tegula concolorous with forewing. Forewing light grey-brown mottled with whitish scales, apex darker grey brown; costa and fold white; an indistinct black streak in termen; fringes whitish grey. Hindwing light grey with whitish grey fringes.

Female. Unknown.

Variation. The above description is based on one rather worn specimen, having the labial palps totally denuded.

Male genitalia (Figure 196). Uncus small, maximum width about one-third of posterior teguminal edge, about two times longer than broad, with parallel lateral margins, apex evenly rounded; gnathos hook stout, slightly longer than uncus, distal half strongly curved with pointed apex; tegumen with broad and moderately shallow emargination anteriorly; pedunculi small, divided by sclerotised ridge; valva extending beyond middle of uncus, broadly digitate, distal part weakly contorted with rounded apex; saccular area with longitudinal ridge, covered with setae, without separated sacculus; posterior margin of vinculum with shallow emargination, distinct lateral hump, vincular sclerite broadly semi-oval, without strongly sclerotised posterior margin; saccus sub-triangular, with weakly concave outer edge, distal part more abruptly tapered to pointed apex, ratio maximum width to length approximately 0.7, posterior margin evenly arched, medially flattened, without incision, medial part smooth, without sclerotised ridge, lateral sclerites about two-thirds maximum width of saccus; phallus with bulbous coecum, distal three-fifths straight, evenly tapered to nearly pointed apex, with sclerotised longitudinal ridge medially.

Female genitalia. Undescribed.


Megacraspedus dejectella  is characterised by its relatively small size, and by the light grey-brown forewings with a white costa and fold and being without black spots. It is similar to M. sumpichi  sp. n. (Figs 70-71), but that species has scattered black scales on the forewing, and its fold is not white. It also resembles M. bengtssoni  sp. n. (Figs 17-18), whose fold is also not white, and which has a black spot at the end of the forewing cell. The male genitalia are somewhat similar to species of the M. bilineatella  species group but differ in several characters such as the shape of the uncus and gnathos hook, the broader valva with a distinct ridge and the phallus.

Molecular data.

Not available, no suitable specimen was available for barcoding.


Southern Spain (prov. Granada).


Host plant and early stages are unknown. The type series was collected at the end of April at unreported altitudes.


Megacraspedus dejectella  was described from three specimens of both sexes collected in the surroundings of Granada, southern Spain ( Staudinger 1859). We examined two males from the type-series, but were unable to trace the female. Staudinger did not state the female to be brachypterous, and one may wonder if he had a female - or if the unlabelled male in ZMHU represents the third type specimen.