Sitochroa malekalis (Amsel, 1950) Alipanah & Malm & Asselbergs, 2020
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/nl.43.49128 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AFE0F1E9-9E4B-4E55-9A64-73FA955F1895 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E06878C4-235F-549A-8088-0243854F7077 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Sitochroa malekalis (Amsel, 1950) |
| status |
comb. nov. |
Sitochroa malekalis (Amsel, 1950) comb. nov. Figs 8A, B View Figure 8 , 9A-C View Figure 9 , 10A, B, D View Figure 10
Loxostege malekalis Amsel, 1950: 245-246, figs 37, 78.
Material examined.
Iran, Fārs Prov [ince]: 2 ♀♀, 50 km Khonj- Lar Rd., 920 m, 14.iv.1975, Borumand leg. (genitalia preparation No. HA-2512, HMIM), 1 ♀, 50 km Lar- Jahrom Rd., 890 m, 13.iv.1975, Borumand leg.; Tehrān Prov [ince]: 1 ♀, Tehrān, Evin, 26.v.1971, no collector given, 1 ♀, Tehrān, Evin, 1600 m, 22.vi.1972, no collector given (genitalia preparation No. 158, HMIM).
Turkmenistan, 1 ♂, W. Kopet Dagh, Parchai, 400 m, 2.v.1996, Z. Klyutschko leg. (genitalia preparation No. 5567 Asb).
Note.
Loxostege malekalis was described by Amsel (1950) based on a single male collected in Takht-e Malek (Sistan and Baluchestan Province) at the beginning of April 1938, and since then the female remained undescribed. During our study, five females were found in the HMIM with the same wing pattern and external characteristics as the male holotype based on the original description, but not examined. They are also externally very similar to the single examined male specimen collected in Kopet Dagh. Because of this superficial similarity, the females are here considered conspecific with L. malekalis and described.
Following a careful examination, the male genitalia of L. malekalis possess the main diagnostic characters of the genus Sitochroa , i.e. a biramous clasper and the presence of a distal sclerotized process at the apex of the phallus. Therefore, this species is here transferred to the genus Sitochroa .
Diagnosis.
Sitochroa malekalis is similar to S. palealis in female genitalia but can be distinguished from the latter by the weakly sclerotized antrum and narrower medial notch at the posterior margin of the seventh abdominal sternite (Figs 7A-C View Figure 7 , 10A, B View Figure 10 ). Moreover, S. palealis has a heavily wrinkled, sclerotized lamella postvaginalis (Fig. 7A-C View Figure 7 ) while in S. malekalis it is hardly sclerotized with less visible wrinkles (Fig. 10A, B View Figure 10 ). These two species also differ from each other in wing pattern (Figs 1C-F View Figure 1 , 8A, B View Figure 8 ) and male genitalia structure (Figs 6A-G View Figure 6 , 10D View Figure 10 ).
There are similarities in the female genitalia between S. malekalis and S. straminealis owing to the presence of a distinct upturned curvature at the posterior end of the ductus bursae, and an elongate sclerotized structure next to it (Fig. 10A-C View Figure 10 ), the shape of the corpus bursae and appendix bursae, and the hardly sclerotized lamella postvaginalis (Fig. 10A-C View Figure 10 ). However, they are very different from each other mainly in the more sclerotized funnel-shaped antrum of S. straminealis compared to the less sclerotized trapezoidal antrum in S. malekalis , and nearly smooth posterior margin of seventh abdominal sternite of S. straminealis compared to that of S. malekalis with deep medial notch (Fig. 10A-C View Figure 10 ).
The male genitalia S. malekalis and S. straminealis are similar to each other in having a long sclerotized process at the internal base of each clasper. However, in S. malekalis the two processes are divergent, less sclerotized, and with rounded apices (Fig. 10D View Figure 10 ) while in S. straminealis they are nearly parallel (in some specimens slightly curved inward), more sclerotized and pointed apically (Fig. 2D, E View Figure 2 ). Moreover, in both species the uncus is relatively wide (Figs 2D View Figure 2 , 10D View Figure 10 ) and the phallus has a narrow, elongate distal sclerotized process (Figs 2D, E View Figure 2 , 10D View Figure 10 ), although in S. malekalis the vesica has only one slender cornutus compared with the three cornuti in S. straminealis (Fig. 2D, F View Figure 2 ). These two species are also very different from each other in wing pattern (Fig. 8A-D View Figure 8 ).
The close external resemblance of S. malekalis to Loxostege phaeoneuralis (Hampson, 1900) was mentioned by Amsel (1950). However, these two species are very different from each other in genitalia structure.
Description of female.
Head (Fig. 9A-C View Figure 9 ). Frons with bluntly pointed cone (Fig. 9B, C View Figure 9 ), covered with brown to pale brown scales and sometimes cream scales admixed with pale brown scales, paler laterally next to the compound eyes in some specimens; vertex with erect cream scales; with few ochre scales behind compound eye; labial palpus porrect with drooping apical segment (Fig. 9B, C View Figure 9 ), nearly twice (n = 4) horizontal diameter of compound eye, second segment longest, apical segment one-third of second segment (n = 1), first segment covered with cream scales, second and third segments covered with cream scales ventrally, brown to ochreous-brown dorso-laterally, in one specimen cream scales admixed with brown scales dorsally; proboscis mostly covered with cream to dirty-cream scales dorsally, in one specimen admixed with ochreous-brown scales; antennae covered with pale brown scales dorsally, in one specimen with cream scales dorsally, with a single considerably long seta present on dorsal surface of basal segment; collar cream, admixed with few pale ochreous-brown scales (Fig. 9A-C View Figure 9 ); thorax and tegula cream, admixed with pale brown scales anteriorly, cream posteriorly; abdomen dirty-cream to pale brown (Fig. 8A View Figure 8 ).
Forewing (Fig. 8A, B View Figure 8 ). Elongate, slightly rounded apically, with costa slightly convex at distal one-third and obliquely rounded termen, with length of 14.50-16.50 mm (Xˉ = 15.80 mm, n = 5); upper side glossy cream, veins and terminal line with brown suffusion, a curved brown medial line present, a strongly curved brown postmedial line crenate towards dorsum between veins Cu1, Cu2, A1+2 and dorsum, with brown discoidal spot, a brown antemedial spot and a relatively broad brown subterminal line thickened towards costa and crenate towards the dorsum, sometimes fading away towards dorsum, fringes dirty-cream to pale brown, with a median pale brown band; underside same as upper side, with antemedial, postmedial and subterminal lines less visible than on upper side, except for the thickened pale brown costal tip of the subterminal line.
Hindwing (Fig. 8A, B View Figure 8 ). Upper side creamy-white, veins and terminal line with pale brown suffusion except for cream suffusion on anal veins, with relatively wide brown to pale brown subterminal line, medial line hardly visible, fringes dirty-cream with hardly visible median pale brown band; underside same as upper side.
Female genitalia (Fig. 10A, B View Figure 10 ). Papillae anales of moderate length and width, slightly narrowed anteriorly; apophyses posteriores slightly shorter than apophyses anteriores; posterior margin of seventh abdominal sternite with deep medial notch, with rounded edges, and setae of moderate sizes (nearly all removed during slide preparation); lamella postvaginalis very slightly sclerotized with hardly visible wrinkles; ostium bursae rounded; antrum nearly membranous, large, trapezoidal and slightly constricted medio-laterally, with small funnel-shaped appendage anteriorly (Fig. 10A, B View Figure 10 ); ductus bursae long, partly twisted, with posterior end widened and partially wrinkled just behind antrum, an elongate sclerotized structure beyond widened area and distinct upturned curvature next to it, with deep kinks at anterior end; ductus seminalis emerging from slightly beyond intersection of ductus bursae and antrum; corpus bursae ovoid, thick-walled, wrinkled, with relatively large rhomboid signum, appendix bursae extending from corpus bursae ventro-apically, round to ovoid when fully inflated (Fig. 10A View Figure 10 ).
Distribution.
Iran: Tahte Malek (= Takht-e Malek, Sistan and Baluchestan Province) ( Amsel 1950) (see also material examined for Iranian specimens), Turkmenistan (current study).
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.