Evergestis affinis Amsel, 1951

Alipanah, Helen, Khodadad, Masoumeh, Rajaei, Hossein & Haseli, Mohammad, 2018, Taxonomic study of the genus Evergestis Hübner, 1825 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae: Glaphyriinae) in Iran with description of a new species, Zootaxa 4420 (1), pp. 1-33 : 2-3

Evergestis affinis Amsel, 1951

Material examined. SMNK: Paratype ♂, Iran, Fars, Straβe Ardekan (presently known as Sepidān) – Talochosroe (an erroneous spelling of Tal Khosrow), Comé (German spelling of Komehr), 3700 m, 10.viii.1937, leg. H. G. Amsel, coll. Brandt (ex. coll. H. G. Amsel) (GS: HA-2038).

Distribution. Iran: (Fars Prov.: Komehr; type locality of the species) ( Amsel 1951, 1961).

Remarks. As stated by Amsel (1951), this species is very close to E. caesialis externally except for wing's termen, which is more oblique in E. affinis than E. caesialis . Moreover, ground color of the forewing in E. affinis is yellow, whereas it is slightly darker in E. caesialis ( Amsel 1951) . The same differences are observed in the examined specimens of both species, i.e. the upper- and undersides of both wings of E. caesialis are remarkably darker than E. affinis ( Figs 1A–D ).

According to Amsel (1951), E. affinis and E. caesialis could easily be distinguished from each other by the wider uncus and shorter ganthos of E. affinis . In the examined specimens, length of the gnathos is one-half and three-fourths of the length of uncus in E. affinis and of E. caesialis , respectively. Moreover, the following differences in the male genitalia of these two species were recognized:

(1) Neck of the uncus in E. caesialis is relatively narrower than in E. affinis ( Figs 2A, E, H ) and the shape of uncus tip in lateral view is different in these two species; being more rounded in dorsal surface and truncated distally in E. affinis , comparing to E. caesialis which resembles as an elongated triangle ( Figs 2B, F ).

(2) In E. affinis only few teeth (about six), with almost equal length and considerable distances from each other, are visible on the ventral surface of gnathos. These teeth extended along the shaft towards the middle part. In contrast, E. caesialis has more than fiftheen teeth with different sizes on the ventral surface of gnathos. These teeth, which are close to each other and sometimes hardly being distinguished as separate teeth, are not occurred in the distal one-fifth of gnathos ( Figs 2B, G, H ).

(3) In E. affinis , distal end of the phallus is almost half length of its proximal end or slightly less, while in E. caesialis it is nearly two-thirds of the proximal end ( Figs 2A, E ). Moreover, there are two small clusters of cornuti in distal end of the phallus in E. affinis , one being slightly denser than the other; whereas in E. caesialis it is consisted of one small cluster ( Figs 2D, I ).

4) Anterior end of juxta in E. caesialis is wider than in E. affinis ( Figs 2C, J ).

The female specimen of E. affinis was not available for study.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Adult males. A–B) Evergestis affinis, Paratype. C–D) E. caesialis. E–F) E. shirazalis, Paratype. A, C, E: upperside. B, D, F: underside.

FIGURE 2. Male genitalia. A–D) Evergestis affinis, Paratype (♂). E–J) E. caesialis. A, E: main body and phallus. B, H: posterior end including uncus and gnathos in lateral (B) and ventral (H) view. C, J: anterior end including juxta and vinculum. D, I: distal end of phallus. F: posterior end including uncus and anal tube. G: posterior end including gnathos and valva.