|
Nephele comma
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 182-183
|
182-183 |
|
Nephele funebris
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 183
|
183 |
|
Nephele lannini
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 183
|
183 |
|
Pheidole nephele
|
|
sp. nov.
|
Longino, John T., 2019, Pheidole (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) of Middle American Wet Forest, Zootaxa 4599 (1), pp. 1-126
: 50
|
50 |
|
Peckia (Peckia) nephele
|
|
|
Buenaventura, Eliana & Pape, Thomas, 2013, <strong> Revision of the New World genus <em> Peckia </ em> Robineau-Desvoidy (Diptera: Sarcophagidae) </ strong>, Zootaxa 3622 (1), pp. 1-87
: 60
|
60 |
|
Laemosaccus nephele
|
|
|
Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939
: 907-911
|
907-911 |
|
Perittia nephele
|
|
|
Kaila, Lauri, 2019, An annotated catalogue of Elachistinae of the World (Lepidoptera: Gelechioidea: Elachistidae), Zootaxa 4632 (1), pp. 1-231
: 147
|
147 |
|
Idiasta nephele
|
|
|
Broad, Gavin R., Shaw, Mark R. & Godfray, H. Charles J., 2016, Checklist of British and Irish Hymenoptera - Braconidae, Biodiversity Data Journal 4, pp. 8151-8151
: 8151
|
8151 |
|
Nephele peneus
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 183
|
183 |
|
Idiasta nephele
|
|
|
Broad, Gavin R., Shaw, Mark R. & Godfray, H. Charles J., 2016, Checklist of British and Irish Hymenoptera - Braconidae, Biodiversity Data Journal 4, pp. 8151-8151
: 8151
|
8151 |
|
Diolcogaster nephele
|
|
|
Fernandez-Triana, J. L., 2015, A revision of the genus Protomicroplitis Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae), with the description of a new species, Zootaxa 4039 (4), pp. 529-542
: 533
|
533 |
|
Laemosaccus nephele
|
|
|
Hespenheide, Henry A., 2019, A Review of the Genus Laemosaccus Schönherr, 1826 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Mesoptiliinae) from Baja California and America North of Mexico: Diversity and Mimicry, The Coleopterists Bulletin (MIMICRY AND LAEMOSACCUS In an earlier paper (Hespenheide 1996), I presented the hypothesis that species of Laemosaccus of the L. nephele group with red humeral spots on the elytra were Batesian mimics of members of the Chrysomelidae in the subfamily Clytrinae. There is no evidence that Laemosaccus species are distasteful, and what is either L. nephele and / or L. obrieni have been reported as prey items of birds (Beal 1912). In Cave Creek Canyon, Cochise County, Arizona, 21 forms (species and “ subspecies ”) of Clytrinae were hypothesized to be the primary models of 22 species of mimics in the families Anthribidae (one species), Bruchidae (two species), Buprestidae (four species), Chrysomelidae, subfamily Cryptocephalinae (three species), Coccinellidae (six species), Curculionidae, subfamily Baridinae (one species), and Laemosaccus (five species). Of these, the coccinellids and the cryptocephaline chrysomelids are probably distasteful Mullerian co-mimics. Ecologically, the species of Laemosaccus co-occurred with their clytrine models on both desert legumes and canyon oaks, although more clytrine species occurred in the desert and more Laemosaccus species occurred in the canyons. Species of clytrines showing the mimetic pattern are common throughout Mexico (Bellamy 2003, who renamed the Mexican buprestid genus Acherusia Laporte and Gory, 1837 as Mimicoclytrina Bellamy to reflect their resemblance to clytrines), but decline in numbers of species and in the proportion of the clytrine fauna through Central America to Panama (Hespenheide 1996, fig. 2). Laemosaccus seems to follow a similar pattern. Mimicry is more common in large faunas, especially in wet tropical areas (Hespenheide 1986, 1995); because the largest clytrine fauna is in Mexico, the clytrine mimicry complex is also larger there (Hespenheide 1996). This complex has more members than I first enumerated and deserves further study. The evolution of mimicry produces resemblances between unrelated species (Laemosaccus and other putative mimics, with clytrines and perhaps other Chrysomelidae and Coccinellidae as models; see Hespenheide 1976, 1996) and selects against the divergence of related species. In Batesian mimicry - hypothesized to be the form of relationship between Laemosaccus and clytrines - the selection for precision of mimicry is stronger on the mimic (Laemosaccus), so that resemblances among them should be closer, regardless of ancestry. Close morphological resemblances based on ecology rather than ancestry may be termed mimetic homoplasy (Hespenheide 2005) and can make recognition of species difficult (as in Laemosaccus) or complicate phylogenetic analyses. I have speculated (Hespenheide 1996) that the sympatric “ subspecies ” of the clytrine models (Moldenke 1970) may in fact be reproductively isolated sibling species. It will be interesting to see whether or not genomic studies show the closeness of relationships among Laemosaccus species that the morphology suggests) 73 (4), pp. 905-939
: 906-907
|
906-907 |
|
Nephele vau
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 184
|
184 |
|
Nephele rosae subsp. illustris
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 183-184
|
183-184 |
|
Emmelia nephele
|
|
|
Mbata, Keith J. & Prins, Jurate De, 2023, Annotated checklist of moths of Zambia (Insecta: Lepidoptera), Zootaxa 5354 (1), pp. 1-503
: 391-392
|
391-392 |
|
Nephele hespera
|
|
|
Rafi, Muhammad Ather, Sultan, Amir, Kitching, Ian J., Pittaway, Anthony R., Markhasiov, Maxim, Khan, Muhammad Rafique & Naz, Falak, 2014, The Hawkmoth Fauna of Pakistan (Lepidoptera: Sphingidae), Zootaxa 3794 (3), pp. 393-418
: 404
|
404 |
|
Nephele hespera
|
|
|
Komal, J., Shashank, P. R., Sondhi, Sanjay, Madan, Sohail, Sondhi, Yash, Meshram, Naresh M. & Anooj, S. S., 2021, Moths (Insecta: Lepidoptera) of Delhi, India: An illustrated checklist based on museum specimens and surveys, Biodiversity Data Journal 9, pp. 73997-73997
: 73997
|
73997 |
|
Coprosma nephelephila
|
|
|
Wagner, Warren L. & Lorence, David H., 2011, Revision of Coprosma (Rubiaceae, tribe Anthospermeae) in the Marquesas Islands, PhytoKeys 4, pp. 109-124
: 114-115
|
114-115 |
