Metanomeuta Meyrick

Tarasova, Anastasiia A. & Ponomarenko, Margarita G., 2025, New data on Microlepidoptera (Lepidoptera: Micropterigidae, Adelidae, Glyphipterigidae, and Yponomeutidae) from the Far East of Russia, Zootaxa 5715 (1), pp. 456-475 : 459-461

Genus Metanomeuta Meyrick

Type species. Metanomeuta fulvicrinis Meyrick, 1935 , by subsequent designation by Friese (1962).

Distribution. Russia (south of Far East: Primorskii Krai), first record; South Korea; China ( Henan, Sichuan, Hubei, Anhui, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guizhou, Fujian, Guangxi); Japan (Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu) ( Moriuti 1977; Jin & Wang 2008; Lewis & Sohn 2015).

Remarks. Genus Metanomeuta was described for two species, M. fulvicrinis and M. zonoceros Meyrick, 1935 based on a series of specimens from H. Höne collection. The M. fulvicrinis was collected in two localities of Central and East China: Tienmushan ( Zhejiang Province) and Hoengshan ( Hunan Province), and M. zonoceros was collected in Hoengshan only ( Meyrick 1935).

Meyrick in the preface for his paper indicated that he “indebted to the great generosity of Prince Aristide Caradja and H. Höne for permission to retain 58 type-specimens” in his collection in British Museum, and only “the co-types and para-types of those when such exist, are deposited in their collections. 29 type-specimens remained in the coll. Caradja, which I especially indicate” ( Meyrick 1935: 45). Meyrick, describing new taxa, indicated that the type series of M. fulvicrinis includes five specimens and the type series of M. zonoceros includes three specimens. Friese (1962), examining the specimens from the Caradja’s collection (National Museum of Natural History “Grigore Antipa”, Bucharest, Romania), indicated totally 15 specimens belonging to both species, synonymising them, and 11 specimens of them associated with M. fulvicrinis . He did not indicate whether he had the specimens studied by Meyrick and mentioned in his descriptions of each species. It is not clear from work by Friese whether the specimen he designated as the lectotype was originally one of the few syntypes with which Meyrick worked. The number of specimens listed by Friese (1962) is twice the number of the type series.

According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature if specimens were not mentioned in the description, they are not syntypes and specimen which was not originally among syntypes and later designed as lectotype lost its status ( ICZN 1999: Arts 74.2, 72.4.1). Moreover, if the specimens from the National Museum of Natural History “Grigore Antipa” were not originally part of the syntype series, they are not also paralectotypes, as erroneously claimed by Friese (1962) and Moriuti (1977).

Lewis & Sohn (2015) statement that “prior to Clarke (1965), Friese (1962) had designated a lectotype of fulvicrinis , as reported by Popescu-Gorj (1992), invalidating Clarke’s designation” is erroneous, since all the discussed specimens in the Caradja’s collection, examined by Friese, in number much more than it was included in the type series, and cannot be syntypes (at least, that part which exceeds the number of probable syntypes). Furthermore, Popescu-Gorj could not validate designation of the lectotype for fulvicrinis by Friese, because he indicated different locality for the Friese’s lectotype of M. fulvicrinis : “West Tien-Mu-shan ( 1600 m)” ( Popescu-Gorj 1992: 152), whereas “ China, Prov. Hunan, Hoeng-Shan ( 900 m)” in Friese (1962: 323). Based on the above, the type locality of the species is also undefined, since it is determined by the place of lectotype origin ( ICZN 1999: Art. 76.2).

Clarke designated lectotypes for M. fulvicrinis and M. zonoceros later ( Clarke 1965), without mention of the Friese’s designation. However, just this designation may be valid, as it fully complies with the requirements of ICZN (1999), since at least part of true syntypes of M. fulvicrinis and M. zonoceros undoubtedly are stored in the NHM, and since Meyrick did not indicate that he passed the type(s) of these species to the Caradja’s collection.

Thus, the questions about priority of lectotype designation for M. fulvicrinis and M. zonoceros , and about the type locality for the first of them are open until the location of the true syntypes of M. fulvicrinis and M. zonoceros is established and whether the true syntypes are designated as lectotypes of these species by Friese (1962).

Metanomeuta fulvicrinis was designed as a type species of the genus Metanomeuta by Friese (1962), who was a first reviser ( ICZN 1999: Art. 24.2.1). He also proposed to treat M. zonoceros as junior synonym of M. fulvicrinis . Later Clarke (1965), designating lectotypes for both species, illustrated them and confirmed their synonymy.

Despite of large similarity in the male genitalia, M. fulvicrinis differs from M. zonoceros by larger size, more arched costa of forewing and different ratio of length and maximal width of forewing: the last species has narrower forewing. Besides, according to original descriptions M. fulvicrinis without distinct wing pattern and these species collected in different months: M. fulvicrinis in May-July and October, and M. zonoceros in July-August.

Jin and Wang (2008), studying numerous specimens collected in China and associated with M. fulvicrinis , showed the variation in shape and pattern of forewing (in the original description forewing without pattern), variation in shape of gnathos and valva, in width of sacculus in the male genitalia and variation in shape of antevaginal and postvaginal plates in the female genitalia. The genus was monotypic until Jin and Wang described two more species: M. spinisparsula Jin & Wang, 2008 and M. yuexiensis Jin & Wang, 2008 . Thus, currently the genus includes three species. The generic composition and status of described taxa within this genus need to be revised not only by morphological comparison but also molecular study.

Considering the great morphological diversity in the current interpretation of M. fulvicrinis , which may be a complex of related species, the specimen from the southern Russian Far East is tentatively identified as M. fulvicrinis , which is first recorded in Russia as well as the genus Metanomeuta Meyrick.