Menevia plagiata (Walker, 1855)

St. Laurent, Ryan A. & Dombroskie, Jason J., 2016, Revision of the genus Menevia Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonoidea, Mimallonidae) with the description of 11 new species, ZooKeys 566, pp. 31-116 : 70-74

Taxon classification Animalia Lepidoptera Mimallonidae

Menevia plagiata (Walker, 1855) Figs 42-44, 52, 53, 83, 84, 98; Map 4

Mimallo plagiata Walker, 1855: 1341

Perophora plagiata ; Raymundo 1919

Menevia plagiata ; Schaus 1928: fig. ♀ 88g

Perophora plagiata ; Monte 1934

Menevia plagiata ; Lima 1950

Menevia plagiata ; Silva et al. 1968

Menevia plagiata ; Becker 1996

Menevia plagiata ; Mecke et al. 2000

Menevia plagiata ; Pastrana 2004

Menevia plagiata ; Herbin and Mielke 2014

Type material.

Holotype, ♂, presumed lost/destroyed. Type locality: Brazil: Rio de Janeiro (see remarks).

Neotype (here designated), ♂: BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro: BRAZIL: Rio de Janeiro Ste., Teresopolis [ Teresópolis], 13-22.iii.1958, H.B.D. Kettlewell, B.M. 1958-273/ NEOTYPE male Mimallo plagiata designated by St Laurent and Dombroskie 2016/ BMNH(E) 1378747/ St. Laurent diss.: 9-2-15:1/ (NHMUK). New type locality: Brazil: Rio de Janeiro: Teresópolis.

Additional specimens examined.

(10 ♂, 19 ♀ total) BRAZIL: Espírito Santo: 3 ♀, Santa Teresa: 20.XI.1966, 18.XII.1966, Elias leg. (DZUP); XII.1966, C. & C.T. Elias (DZUP). Pernambuco: 1 ♂, Serra de Communaty [southeastern Pernambuco]: 1.II.1893, E. Gounelle, Ex. Oberthür Coll., Brit. Mus. 1927-3, ex. Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157, BMNH(E) 1378748, St. Laurent diss.: 6-29-15:12 (NHMUK). 1 ♀, Canhotinho: 19.VII.1991, Cardoso leg., ex. coleção A. Cardoso, No. 5467 (DZUP). Rio de Janeiro: 3 ♂, Teresópolis: 13-22.III.1958, H.B.D. Kettlewell, B.M. 1958-273, BMNH(E) 1378746, 1378751, 1378752, St. Laurent diss.: 6-29-15:13, 6-29-15:14 (NHMUK). 3 ♂, 4 ♀, Petrópolis: 2.XII.1875, 10.XII.1875, 29.III.1876, Joicey Bequest, Brit. Mus. 1934-120, BMNH(E) 1378749, St. Laurent diss.: 6-29-15:15 (NHMUK); 10.IV.1928, 6.IV.1959, 26.IV.1960, 23.X.1964, Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin (DZUP). 1 ♂, Petrópolis, Independência: 21.IX.1939, Gagarin leg., ex. col. Gagarin (DZUP). 1 ♀, Mendes, 92 km from Rio de Janeiro: Collection Le Moult, Joicey Coll. Brit. Mus. 1925-157 (NHMUK). 2 ♀, Corcovado, 800 ft: II.1910, 2.II.1910, E.D. Jones, E.D. Jones coll. 1919-295, [1 ♀ is the “type” of manuscript name Perophora ‡ superba D. Jones, BMNH(E) 805425] (NHMUK). 2 ♀, Eugenho de Dentro, E.F.C.B.: 1.I.1947, 4.I.1947, ex. pupa, Nelson Almeida, No. 19.174, 19.175 ex. coll. D’Almeida (DZUP). 1 ♀, Três Rios, Jacarepagua [additional illegible data]: 17.IX.1929, Ferr. d’Almeida, ex. coll D’Almeida, No. 19.173 (DZUP). 1 ♀, "Penedo, Rezende" [either Penedo or Resende]: 4.X.1955, Coleção Richard Frey (DZUP). 2 ♂, 3 ♀, no additional locality data: Collection Wm Schaus, USNM-Mimal: 1202, St. Laurent diss.: 6-19-15:6 (USNM); 10.IX.1912, M.J. Holland, Carn. Mus. Acc. 4770, St. Laurent diss.: 4-25-15:2 (CMNH); Ex. Coll. J. Doll, Ac. 24352, St. Laurent diss.: 7-28-15:1 (AMNH); 12.IX.1943, Gagarin leg. ex. col. Gagarin (DZUP); IX.1944, ex. coleção A. Cardoso (DZUP). 1 ♀, additional locality information illegible: 5.I(?).1930, Ferreira d’Almeida, ex. coll. d’Almeida (DZUP).

Diagnosis.

Menevia plagiata is recognizable from all previous species in both sexes by the replacement of the wing margin-swept postmedial lunule with a white band along the length of the postmedial line, which is interrupted midway and resumes near the inner margin. The female of Menevia plagiata is differentiated from the following two similar species by the presence of a straight or only weakly undulated postmedial line, which, along with the white accessory band, curves toward the apex of the forewing, sometimes sharply, usually to the wingtip, rather than ending at or before reaching the apical dash. Male genitalia are unlike any other species except Menevia alurca , in that the phallus bears a prominent, elongated, pointed projection from the dorsal surface and is not smooth or ridged as in all other previously diagnosed species. The nearly straight forewing postmedial lines (except near the apex) distinguish both male and female Menevia plagiata from Menevia alurca , whereas male genitalia characters and the apical curve of the female forewing postmedial line distinguish Menevia plagiata from Menevia australis sp. n.

Description.

Male.Head: Gray, eyes large comprising about two-thirds of head area, eyes bordered posteriorly by darker gray collar of scales reaching labial palpi, labial palpi very small, dorsally with darker scales contrasting with overall gray coloration. Scape and pedicel tufted. Thorax: As for genus. Light gray-brown. Legs: As for genus. Tibial spurs small to moderate in length, almost entirely scaled. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 22-24.5 mm, avg.: 22.4 mm, n = 7. Triangular, apical half of outer margins concave, apex falcate. Ground color gray-brown with darker gray, brown suffusion especially near interior edge of postmedial line and medial area, reddish coloration near apex along apical interior of postmedial line, overall lightly speckled by dark petiolate scales. Discal spot faintly marked by light gray oblong shape, thin gray mark connecting discal spot to costa. Apex marked by black scales above apical dash, especially near apical tip. Postmedial line straight or weakly undulated, line black, strongly contrasting. Submarginal area light gray with whitish suffusion mesally, postmedial lunule as white band originating from apical dash, white band follows postmedial line from apex to midway along postmedial line, resuming near anal margin. Antemedial line faint, brown, curved outwards. Forewing venter: As in forewing dorsum but grayer rather than brownish, sometimes with pinkish hue, black portion of postmedial line mostly absent except medially where very dark, white outer band of postmedial line as in dorsum, antemedial line absent. Hindwing dorsum: Subtriangular, anal angle weakly accentuated, reddish suffusion near anal angle, similar coloration and patterning as forewings, except postmedial lunule present as zigzagged mark, originating from white outer band along first quarter of postmedial line, postmedial line usually sharply bent toward anterior wing margin, sometimes weakly concave mesally. Hindwing venter: Following similar pattern as forewing venter, but red coloration near anal angle and medial area much darker. Abdomen: As for genus but elongated, nearly sphingiform, reaching beyond anal margin of hindwing. Coloration a continuation of gray thoracic color. Dark, contrasting, midventral stripe present along entire length. Genitalia: (Figs 83, 84) n = 7. Somewhat variable; tegumen ovoid or rounded rectangular, sometimes weakly constricted near base of gnathos. Vinculum narrow, somewhat quadrate ventrally. Valves short, stocky, bent outwards or more elongated; saccular edge of left valve with large triangular tooth proximal to transtilla, sometimes notched mesally, right valve with tooth slightly reduced in size, both valves with prominent mesal costal projection originating from central ridge of valve, projection immediately above saccular edge teeth, apex of mesal projection pointed toward saccular edge. Valves triangular, rounded, or somewhat pointed apically. Uncus truncated apically, apex rounded. Gnathos as two prominent flattened, moderately sclerotized, flap-like, somewhat triangular, outward-facing extensions with truncated apices. Apices usually form fingerlike projections of varying length. Juxtal processes roughly phallus length, moderately sclerotized, curving toward apex of phallus. Juxtal processes very thin, long, widening distally, covered in fine setae, especially apically. Base of phallus with paired, backwards facing, elongated, rounded, diverging lobes sometimes with pointed tips on one or both lobes. Phallus irregularly shaped, unevenly edged dorsum lacking an extensive dorsal ridge but with prominent, elongated or sharply triangular, pointed protuberance, covered in setae, apical tip usually bent back wards. Left edge of rolled phallus uneven, forming extended protuberance, right edge usually with setae covered bulge laterally; base of sclerotized terminus of phallus with prominent ventral bump, angled away from distal end of phallus. Distal tip of phallus separated into two distinct points of varying length. Vesica elongated. Female.Head: As in male. Thorax: As in male. Legs: As in male. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 27.5 mm, n = 1. Maculation as in male, wing broader, more ovoid, less triangular, postmedial line may be bent slightly outward mesally, outer white band of postmedial line curved toward apex, continuously to wingtip, forming very acute angle at junction with apical dash, dark scaling above apical dash usually concentrated near apical tip. Forewing venter: As in forewing dorsum but grayer. Hindwing dorsum: As in male but more rounded, less triangular, postmedial line straight except for sharp turn towards anterior wing margin, not concave mesally. Hindwing venter: Following similar pattern as forewing venter, reddish-brown suffusion near anal angle much darker. Abdomen: As in male but more robust. Sternite of VIII as pair of elongated sclerotized bands curving toward each other near anterior edge of VIII segment, but never converge. Genitalia: (Fig. 98) n = 1. Tergite of VIII forms triangular, posteriorly directed arc. Apophyses anteriores shorter than apophyses posteriores, apophyses very thin. Lamella antevaginalis thin, C-shaped, weakly notched mesally near ostium bursae. Ductus bursae short. Papillae anales subtriangular, covered in relatively long setae.

Distribution

(Map 4). Menevia plagiata is found in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Most records come from the state of Rio de Janeiro, but records also exist from farther north in Espírito Santo and Pernambuco states. The distribution of this species probably extends along the entire coast of Brazil north from the state of Rio de Janeiro.

Natural history.

A number of host records exist in the literature for Menevia plagiata sensu lato, but due to the uncertainty of the identification of this taxon in the past (see remarks below), we cannot be certain that all of the following records pertain to Menevia plagiata sensu stricto. Perhaps the most reliable record comes from Raymundo (1919) because this author figures the adult of true Menevia plagiata and describes its distribution as only including the Brazilian states of Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo, which eliminates the more southerly distributed Menevia australis sp. n. and the primarily Amazonian Menevia vulgaris sp. n., both described below. Raymundo (1919), Monte (1934), and Lima (1950) mention only Terminalia catappa ( Combretaceae ) as a host of Menevia plagiata , a species we previously showed to be a host of Menevia ostia . Additional, less verifiable host plant records include: Psidium guajava ( Myrtaceae ), Licania tomentosa ( Chrysobalanaceae ), and even Araucaria angustifolia ( Araucariaceae ) all cited in Silva et al. (1968). Silva et al. (1968) refers to “pinheiro” (Pine), which we interpret to mean Araucaria angustifolia because this host is listed by Mecke et al. (2000) for Menevia plagiata , citing Silva et al. (1968). Additionally, Pastrana (2004) mentions Prunus amygdalus ( Rosaceae ) as a host for Menevia plagiata , but this is probably an erroneous misinterpretation of Lima (1950) who had listed "amendoeira ( Terminalia catappa )" as the host of Menevia plagiata , referring to amendoeira da praia ( Terminalia catappa ), not true amendoeira (almond, Prunus amygdalus ).

Remarks.

Menevia plagiata is the most problematic taxon in the genus, largely due to the unavailability of the holotype, which is presumed to be lost. The holotype of Menevia plagiata originated from Fry’s collection, and was collected in Rio de Janeiro. Becker (2001) provided information pertaining to the history of the many specimens from the Fry Collection, collected in Rio de Janeiro, later described by Walker, that were subsequently damaged, and are apparently now lost. We attempted to locate the holotype of Menevia plagiata at the NHMUK but were unsuccessful. Contacting the University Museum, Oxford in an effort to locate the holotype there was also unsuccessful. Although it is not impossible that this type remains undiscovered somewhere in these or other collections, we consider it unlikely to be located, thus we here designate a neotype for this species based on information discussed below.

Walker’s (1855) original description of Menevia plagiata is rather vague and could arguably be attributed to either Menevia plagiata or Menevia franclemonti sp. n. as both of these species are found in Rio de Janeiro and are somewhat similar in appearance. The most important line in Walker’s description is that relating to the white band, which follows the postmedial line in both Menevia plagiata and Menevia franclemonti sp. n. This band is interrupted in the former and continuous in the latter. Walker (1855) states in his original description of Menevia plagiata that there is a "very oblique slender white band at three-fourths of the length, forming a very acute angle near the tip," which we interpret to mean the white band following the exterior of the postmedial line. However, Walker does not mention whether the white band is continuous or interrupted along the length of the postmedial line, which is necessary information to attribute this description definitively to either species. Walker’s description of Mimallo saturata Walker, 1855 from the same work offers some characters that could be attributed to what we consider Menevia plagiata , in which the most important again is the white band along what is assumed to be the postmedial line: "a whitish slender slightly oblique band, which has a blackish border on its outer side, and extends from near the tip of the costa to three-fourths of the length of the interior border" ( Walker 1855). The holotype of Menevia saturata is also presumed lost due to it originating from Fry’s collection and having a type locality of Rio de Janeiro.

An additional taxonomic issue was created by the presence of the “holotype” of Perophora ‡ superba Jones in the NHMUK. The name ‡ superba is a manuscript name and was never published by Jones. It is possible that Jones realized the similarity of ‡ superba to Menevia plagiata as described by Walker, and hence did not describe it. This assumption is an additional piece of evidence supporting our concept of Menevia plagiata because the “holotype” of ‡ superba matches it. If a validly published description using the name ‡ superba is located, it would have to be treated as a junior synonym of Menevia plagiata .

After visiting the NHMUK and reviewing the specimens belonging to the Menevia plagiata species-group, it was clear that all Rio de Janeiro specimens matched our concept of Menevia plagiata , including a number of specimens from the late 1800's. The other species that the name plagiata could be associated with, which we describe below as Menevia franclemonti sp. n., is rarer relative to Menevia plagiata and was not present in the NHMUK. Schaus (in Seitz 1928) illustrated our concept of Menevia plagiata as this species, and did not figure anything resembling Menevia franclemonti sp. n. Therefore; it seems most probable that Walker had a specimen matching our concept of Menevia plagiata at his disposal when writing his description. Finally, one of the oldest Menevia plagiata determinations in the NHMUK, from 1889 by C. Berg, was a female specimen matching our concept of Menevia plagiata . This provides an indication that as early as 1889 the name plagiata was being associated with the species that we consider to be Menevia plagiata .

The taxonomic history of the name plagiata is surely complicated, and unfortunately, without seeing the holotype, we might never be completely sure that our concept of the species coincides with that of Walker’s (1855). Complications compound further when considering the great deal of variation, both externally and in male genitalia morphology, that Menevia plagiata displays within the state of Rio de Janeiro. The considerable amount of variation suggests that Menevia plagiata sensu lato may represent a species complex. However, the four examined NHMUK specimens from Teresópolis, Rio de Janeiro, including the neotype, represent a cohesive series in terms of external characteristics and genitalia, with very little variation. The valves of these specimens are much stouter and the projection of the phallus shorter than in other Menevia plagiata from nearby locations in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Therefore, to stabilize the nomenclature, we here designate the neotype, chosen from this series. A specimen from Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro at DZUP also greatly resembles the series of four Menevia plagiata from Teresópolis (see Fig. 43).