Elachista dispilella

Kaila, Lauri, Baran, Tomasz & Mutanen, Marko, 2015, A revision of the Elachista dispilella complex (Lepidoptera: Gelechioidea: Elachistidae), Zootaxa 3963 (4), pp. 517-560 : 519-520

publication ID

https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.3963.4.3

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:752E44D7-8171-4DF0-9128-D0E20D1F26CE

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6102308

persistent identifier

https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FA280234-3A11-FFFC-FF24-FD62FEC0FC85

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Elachista dispilella
status

 

Confusion of E. dispilella View in CoL , E. festucicolella and E. distigmatella

Elachista dispilella View in CoL was described on the basis of material collected by Zeller in Głogów (originally Glogau) ( Zeller 1839), a town situated in south-western part of Poland. It is the oldest taxon name of the E. dispilella View in CoL complex. The identity of E. dispilella View in CoL was established by Parenti (1977) by designating a lectotype for this species and for E. festucicolella Zeller, 1853 View in CoL . E. S. Nielsen, during the preparation of a monograph on North European fauna ( Traugott-Olsen & Nielsen 1977), took the view that Parenti had unintentionally transposed the abdomens or the slide labels of E. dispilella View in CoL and E. festucicolella View in CoL . Nielsen and G. S. Robinson transferred the slides to the supposedly correct position, with a note: “According to E. S. Nielsen, Parenti accidentally switched the abdomens of festucicolella View in CoL and dispilella View in CoL . I have accordingly reversed the labels and numbers on the slides; Parenti’s original labels are below. Specimens untouched; signed G. S. R. [Gaden S. Robinson] 14.VIII.1979. Representatives of Parenti’s concept of species are illustrated in Parenti (1977). Apparently, the suspicion of Parenti’s error stems from the so far understood ‘traditional’ identity of these species, based on works of Hering (1891), Rebel (1901) and Martini (1902).

After the lectotype designation and the events that followed, the identification of these species has not been straightforward, and specimens with genitalia as illustrated by Parenti (1977) for E. dispilella View in CoL have been considered E. festucicolella View in CoL , or following Traugott-Olsen (1990) E. steueri Traugott-Olsen, 1990 View in CoL , E. manni Traugott-Olsen, 1990 View in CoL , E. gebzeensis Traugott-Olsen, 1990 View in CoL , or E. jaeckhi Traugott-Olsen, 1990 View in CoL , with no apparent basis for the distinction of these three, apart from one: Traugott-Olsen & Nielsen (1977) depicted the E. festucicolella View in CoL as unicolorous white (it is, indeed, unicolorous, but not pure white according to Zeller). However, the specimen illustrated in Traugott-Olsen & Nielsen (1977) is from a population occurring in the island of Öland in Sweden, in which the two spots typical of E. dispilella sensu Zeller View in CoL are either faintly present or entirely absent.

Another fairly widespread species in Western Europe has been identified as E. dispilella View in CoL . This concept, however, is not in accordance with Zeller’s original account of this taxon, nor to either of the genitalia of the lectotypes of E. dispilella View in CoL or E. festucicolella View in CoL . It is externally similar to the so-called E. dispilella View in CoL . Traugott-Olsen (1990) recognized that such a species exists, and concluded that it is E. distigmatella Frey, 1859 View in CoL , hitherto considered a synonym of E. dispilella View in CoL ( Hering 1891, Rebel 1901, Martini 1902, Nielsen and Traugott-Olsen (1977). Traugott-Olsen (1990) re-instated it as a valid species, yet somewhat illogically continued considering the identity of E. dispilella View in CoL and E. festucicolella View in CoL as in Traugott-Olsen & Nielsen (1977).

Parenti (1981) recognized a taxon with external appearance of E. festucicolella sensu Zeller—and actually also genitalia as in the lectotype of E. festucicolella View in CoL , designated by Parenti himself, and described it as a new species, E. klimeschi View in CoL . This decision is hard to understand, especially as in connection of the lectotype designation of E. festucicolella Parenti (1977) View in CoL does not illustrate the genitalia of the lectotype of E. festucicolella View in CoL but of an Italian specimen—from where E. klimeschi View in CoL was later described. The only reason conceivable to us for this decision is that Parenti had become convinced that he had indeed made a mistake while dissecting the genitalia of the lectotypes of E. dispilella View in CoL and E. festucicolella View in CoL . There is no information supporting the decision in connection of the very brief original description of E. klimeschi View in CoL . The matter remains therefore unexplained and odd, especially as Parenti was generally conservative regarding description of new species. The biology, external appearance, or the genitalia of E. klimeschi View in CoL do not differ from the original account of E. festucicolella View in CoL by Zeller in any way. A series of specimens, including probable paralectotypes present in the collection of J. M. J. af Tengström, now housed in MZH, show external appearance with two spots as E. dispilella View in CoL s. authors, but genitalia as E. festucicolella View in CoL s. authors. Likewise, specimens that externally resemble E. festucicolella View in CoL have genitalia as E. dispilella View in CoL s. authors. We have never encountered specimen/genitalia combination as in the lectotypes in BMNH as currently labeled. We take all the above mentioned notions as definite evidence that Parenti never made a mistake when dissecting and designating lectotypes for E. dispilella View in CoL and E. festucicolella View in CoL . Therefore, the genital slide numbers of the lectotypes of E. dispilella View in CoL and E. festucicolella View in CoL must again be reversed to be B.M. genitalia slide 19364 for E. dispilella View in CoL and B.M. genitalia slide 19363 for E. festucicolella View in CoL . Elachista festucicolella View in CoL is a senior synonym of E. klimeschi Parenti View in CoL (later emended to E. klimeschiella Parenti, 2002 View in CoL due to homonymy). Elachista dispilella View in CoL is the species that has usually been called E. festucicolella View in CoL . Elachista distigmatella View in CoL is the species that has been understood to be E. dispilella View in CoL in Western Europe.

The aim of this study is to revise the taxonomy of the Elachista dispilella species complex using integrated approach. We examined the morphology of extensive material of the E. dispilella complex, including type material. Furthermore, we sequenced DNA barcode region (a standard 658 bp fragment of mitochondrial COI gene) of 101 specimens to obtain additional insights into genetic patterns within and between the species Full taxonomic and collection data, including GenBank accession numbers, of these 101 specimens is available through the public dataset DS-ELADIS at BOLD database at http://www.boldsystems.org, accessible from http://dx.doi.org/10.5883/ DS-DISPI.

DNA

Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport

COI

University of Coimbra Botany Department

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Lepidoptera

Family

Elachistidae

Genus

Elachista

Loc

Elachista dispilella

Kaila, Lauri, Baran, Tomasz & Mutanen, Marko 2015
2015
Loc

E. klimeschiella

Parenti 2002
2002
Loc

E. steueri

Traugott-Olsen 1990
1990
Loc

E. manni

Traugott-Olsen 1990
1990
Loc

E. gebzeensis

Traugott-Olsen 1990
1990
Loc

E. jaeckhi

Traugott-Olsen 1990
1990
Loc

E. festucicolella

Parenti 1977
1977
Loc

E. distigmatella

Frey 1859
1859
Loc

E. festucicolella

Zeller 1853
1853
GBIF Dataset (for parent article) Darwin Core Archive (for parent article) View in SIBiLS Plain XML RDF