Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892

Sh, Hossein Rajaei, Stüning, Dieter & Trusch, Robert, 2012, Taxonomic revision and zoogeographical patterns of the species of Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892 (Geometridae, Ennominae), Zootaxa 3360, pp. 1-52 : 3-5

The genus Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892

Type species: Gnophos colchidaria Lederer, 1870 , by original designation by Staudinger, 1892 (see Taxonomic note below).

Description. Wings and body. All species in the genus small to medium-sized, with a wingspan between 21 and 30 mm. The ground colour of wings varies from dark brown to light brown or greyish-white (sand-coloured), sometimes with a reddish or orange hue. Transverse lines obsolete or represented by dark brown or grey spots on the veins, on the costa or on hind margin. In most specimens, a thin, white, zigzag-shaped submarginal line present, at least near apex, and the space between this narrow and the postmedial line of dots is very often represented as a dark grey band. Also often the whole postmedial area is darkened, with the submarginal line visible inside. This band is much more conspicuous on the under side of the wings, its colour being dark brown, grey or almost black and the remaining part of the wings almost white, but not in all specimens. Others have the under side rather indistinct, light brownish, speckled with darker scales and the broad postmedial band only slightly darker and even narrower. These strong variations occur intraspecifically in both sexes. Also in many specimens, but not always, a light brownish, yellowish or sometimes white apical patch is present, also on under side. Venation (see fig. 3a): R1 and R2 completely coincident, arising at a short distance from upper angle of cell, not anastomosing with Sc and with the common stalk of R3-5. Base of 1A curved around fovea. Cell-spots small, but usually well defined on both wings, larger on under side, darker than the remaining pattern elements. Termen of forewings slightly and evenly rounded. Externally, sexual dimorphism is not very strong: the females are slightly larger and have the wings a little broader, in the males the wings are narrower, with the apex rather acute, and a fovea is present (fig. 3b). Antennae of females are filiform, shortly ciliate, in males they are bipectinate, apart from the terminal 12–18 segments (fig. 2a). Transitional zone between pectinated and unpectinated segments short. The rami of the male antennae are long and narrow, dorsally scaled, densely setose ventrally and arise distally from the elongated basal segments. The latter are about two times as long as their diameter. Frons (see figs 1a–b; Viidalepp, 1988: 136, figs 5–8) moderately or strongly conical, distally rounded, sometimes slightly invaginated along its distal margin, with an additional, round protrusion in the centre. Large, unscaled, ventrally pointed genae laterally beneath frons present (see fig. 1c). Palps short and rather narrow, reaching or slightly exceeding the tip of the frons; basal joint with larger, protruding scales. Haustellum well developed. Vertex covered with large, lamellar scales; extended chaetosemata present, but without medial connection. Fore legs with long epiphysis and a tibial spine in both sexes (often hidden behind scales; absent in irakensis ; see figs 2b–e), in hind legs tibia not dilated, without scent–brush; index of spurs 0-2-4. Abdomen without setal comb on sternite 3, sternite 8 distally with a pair of elongate, apically rounded processes (“octavals”, fig. 4, 1–2).

Male genitalia (fig. 4, 3–10). Uncus broad at base, quadriform, densely setose dorsally, with a short, narrow tip, without ‘horns’ (the latter present in many other genera of Macariini , see Scoble & Krüger 2002). Gnathus with strong, flattened lateral arms and a rounded, smooth medial plate. Valva divided into dorsal and ventral parts; dorsal part elongate, with costa sclerotized and a setose, apically rounded cucullus; ventral part of valva (sacculus) with two strongly sclerotized, tooth-like projections. Aedeagus long (dependent on species 1.2–1.5 mm), evenly curved in lateral view, with a ventral fin (except in irakensis ), with one or two groups of subapical spines, and fused or single cornuti on the vesica which may be absent occasionally. Basal part of vesica covered with field of minute spines (see fig. 43c).

Female genitalia (fig. 4, 11–17). Eighth abdominal segment short, rather membranous, with short and strong apophyses, ovipositor short, papillae anales ventrally covered with specialized setae (‘floricomus’: setae with an expanded, scoop-like head) (see also figs 47a, b) and with numerous long, fine setae dorso-laterally. Bursa copulatrix membranous, globular to pear-shaped, with a very large, stellate signum of variable shape, but without a mushroom-like stalk. Ductus bursae narrow, strongly bent at the middle, sclerotized in posterior half, sclerotized antrum rather short (described as long in Scoble & Krüger 2002, who consider the posterior, sclerotized part of the ductus bursae as belonging to the antrum). Sterigma consisting of a broad, sclerotized antevaginal band and narrower lateral and postvaginal bands, the latter with a lens-shaped sclerite in the centre (see also figs 45 & 46). The female genitalia of all Gnopharmia taxa are very similar and also variable in a number of characters. No distinct differences have been discovered so far that allows us to distinguish the species on this basis. This is even true for the supposed females of G. irakensis whose males are very different from all other Gnopharmia males concerning their genitalia.

Diagnosis. Within the tribe Macariini , there is only one other genus sharing a number of characters with and being obviously closely related to Gnopharmia : Neognopharmia Wehrli, 1953 . Neognopharmia shares with Gnopharmia the structure of the antennae (apical segments not pectinated, rami scaled dorsally, arising distally from the flagellomeres), the presence of a fovea on the male forewings, the structure of the legs (long epiphysis of fore legs, unmodified tibia of hind legs), the absence of a setal comb on sternite 3, the presence and similar form of octavals, the form of the valva in male genitalia (separated into dorsal and ventral parts), and the presence of a floricomus. But also the differences are distinctive (see Table 1), and therefore we believe that Neognopharmia deserves full generic rank. At present (according to Parsons et al., 1999) only the type species stevenaria Boisduval, 1840 is included, but in a forthcoming revision, three other species, including a new one from Pakistan, will be added. One of them, horhammeri Brandt, 1938 , was already mentioned as a member of Neognopharmia by Wehrli (1953: 568), and a second one as var. cataleucaria Staudinger of stevenaria.

Taxonomic Notes. Staudinger (1892: 184) designated G. colchidaria (Lederer) as the type-species of Gnopharmia : “therefore I think that this Colchidaria together with its varieties will best be placed into a special genus for which […] I propose the name Gnopharmia ” [original designation; translated from German]. Fletcher’s (1979: 91) statement “Type-species Gnophos colchidaria Lederer, 1870 , by subsequent designation by Prout, 1915, in Seitz, Gross-Schmett. Erde 4: 383” therefore is incorrect. Prout (l.c.) states “I have only seen the typical species ( colchidaria ) which unites the appearance of a Gnophos with the structure of a Boarmia or Tephronia ” [translated from German]. Wehrli (1953: 568) described Neognopharmia as a new subgenus (“subg. nov.”) of Gnopharmia , but already two years earlier ( Wehrli, 1951: 8) published a note about it, there referring to a description seemingly already published (but in fact published two years later in Seitz 4, Suppl.). In this note he mentioned “ Ctenognophos ” stevenaria Boisduval as being anatomically related to Gnopharmia , and as already placed into the new subgenus (“nouveau s-g.”) Neognopharmia . He also mentioned G. horhammeri Brdt. [Brandt] as “new species” (i.e. new addition) of this subgenus. Parsons et al. (1999: 634) accepted this as a valid description and also upgraded the subgenus to full genus rank. We also think that Neognopharmia deserves full genus rank, but we believe that the 1951 description is invalid: stevenaria is not designated as type species, but merely as one of two species belonging to the new subgenus, there is no description included (ICZN, articles 13.1.1, 13.3, 13.6). According to article 13.6, a name described later than 1930 cannot be made available by “indication” (i.e., by mentioning one or more valid species names in combination with the new subgenus name). Therefore we propose that Neognopharmia should be cited as mentioned above: Wehrli, 1953: 568. Scoble & Krüger (2002), in their “Review of the genera of Macariini ,” do not mention the genus Neognopharmia and treat stevenaria within the genus Gnopharmia (according to our studies this is not justified).