20. nigriradix Filipjev, 1931 (Figs 22, 39, 68)

Peronea nigriradix Filipjev, 1931 . Annuaire du Musée Zoologique de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS 1931 (1930): 513. Plate A, figs 4-6; Plate XXIII, fig. 1; Plate XXIX, fig. 5. TL: Russia, “Jakovlevka, Daubiche-Wald” (Far East, Yakovlevka).

Types. Holotype ♂: “Яковлевка Спас. у. Уссур. кр. 14.IX.926 ДьЯконов, Филипьев [ Yakovlevka, Ussuri Region, 14.IX.1926 Djakonov, Filipjev]”, “Лес по раЗливу р. ДаубихЭ [ Forest nearby the river Daubikhe (= Arsen’yevka)]”, gold circle, “Holotypus, Sihe Foto!”, “Holotypus Peronea nigriradix Filipjev, 1931 ”, “ ZISP INS _LEP_0001821”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24192 Acleris nigriradix (Filipjev, 1931) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”.

Paratypes: 32 ♂ and 12 ♀ – 21 ♂ and 7 ♀ “Яковлевка Спас. у. Уссур. кр. ДьЯконов, Филипьев [ Yakovlevka, Ussuri Region, Djakonov, Filipjev]”, “Лес по раЗливу р. ДаубихЭ [ Forest nearby the river Daubikhe (= Arsen’yevka)]”, white circle, “Paratypus Peronea nigriradix Fil. ” (♀ 10.IX.926; ♂ 10. V.926; 4 ♂, ♀ 24. V.926; 4 ♂, 3♀ 8.IX.926; 7 ♂ 10.IX.926; ♂ 14.IX.926; ♂ 16.IX.926; 3 ♂, 2 ♀ 17.IX.926) ; 8 ♂ and ♀ “Яковлевка Спас. у. Уссур. кр. ДьЯконов, Филипьев [Yakovlevka, Ussuri Region, Djakonov, Filipjev]”, “Пасека И. Лешко [I. Leshko’s apiary]”, white circle, “Paratypus Peronea nigriradix Fil. ” ; 3 ♂ and 4 ♀ “Виноградовка Спас. у. Уссур. кр. ДьЯконов, Филипьев [Vinogradovka, Ussuri Region, Djakonov, Filipjev]”, white circle, “Paratypus Peronea nigriradix Fil. ” (♀ 13. V.929; ♀ 16. V.929; 2 ♂ 19. V.929; ♂, ♀ 20. V.929; ♀ 3. VI.929) .

Present status. Acleris nigriradix (Filipjev, 1931) .

Comments. Gilligan et al. (2018) listed the type locality imprecisely as “Ussuri” and marked the holotype sex as “unknown.” Genitalia of both sexes were illustrated in the original description. Several probable errors exist in the list of type material provided in the original description. Two additional males, collected on 24.V.1926 and 8.IX.1929 and bearing a white circle, were found in the ZISP collection. At the same time, 10 males and 8 females mentioned in the original description were not located in the collection and are presumably lost. A single male from Yakovlevka, collected on 1.V.1926 and bearing a white circle, was not mentioned in the original description and is considered here as a non-type specimen .