Uranophora andrei ( Rothschild, 1912 ) Cock & Laguerre, 2022

Cock, Matthew J. W. & Laguerre, Michel, 2022, Taxonomic changes in the Neotropical wasp moths, Euchromiina and Ctenuchina (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Arctiinae, Arctiini) relating to the fauna of Trinidad & Tobago, with descriptions of new species, Zootaxa 5222 (2), pp. 101-132 : 127

Uranophora andrei ( Rothschild, 1912) , new combination

Figs. 41–43 . BIN: BOLD:AEJ0082

Rothschild (1912) described Ctenucha andrei from Ariapite Valley , Trinidad, and the female type is in NHMUK. Our treatment of this species is based on material from Trinidad compared with the type .

The type species of Ctenucha Kirby, 1837 (in Richardson et al. 1837) is Ctenucha latreillana Kirby, 1837 (in Richardson et al. 1837, TL Canada, by monotypy); C. latreillana is a subjective junior synonym of Sphinx virginica Esper, 1794 ( Watson et al. 1980, Schmidt & Opler 2008). Based on the public barcodes in BOLD, C. andrei is not closely related to the North American Ctenucha species, including C. virginica . Furthermore, the male genitalia of C. virginica ( CUIC 2021) are substantially different to those of C. andrei .

The type species of Uranophora Ḩbner, [1831] (in Ḩbner & Geyer [1808] –1837) is U. chalybea Ḩbner, [1831] (in Ḩbner & Geyer [1808] –1837, TL Cuba). No type material is known, and so Cerda (2017) illustrated the male genitalia of a specimen from Cuba, to help define the genus. He then made the new combination Uranophora circe (Cramer, 1780) (in Cramer (1777 –1782), TL Suriname), based on the similarity of the genitalia of the two species, and noted that other species similar to U. circe in appearance and currently placed in Ctenucha or Napata Walker, 1854 would need to be reassessed based on their male genitalia.

In habitus, C. andrei closely resembles Cerda’s (2017) treatment of U. circe apart in having the ventral surface of the thorax and abdomen largely white in the male ( Figs. 41 , 42 ). The male genitalia are similar (compare Fig. 43 with Cerda’s (2017) Fig. 90), but not the same, so we consider them congeneric. Although Cerda (2017) placed U. circe in Uranophora based on the general similarity to U. chalybea , the type species of the genus, we are not convinced this is correct as there are differences in the male genitalia. However, pending further study, as an interim measure we here transfer Ctenucha andrei to Uranophora to reflect that it does not belong in Ctenucha and it is congeneric with U. circe .

Figures

FIGURE 41. Male Uranophora andrei, nr. Plum, Marper Farm, to Heliotropium, 23.x.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]

FIGURE 42. Female Uranophora andrei, Cat’s Hill, eupatorium flowers, 24.ix.2017 (John Morrall) [MJWC, DNA 144]

FIGURE 43. Male genitalia Uranophora andrei, Trinidad, W.I., Parrylands, eupatorium flowers, i.2019 (S. Alston-Smith) [MJWC, DNA 308, dissection 1136]