Nemophora smaragdaspis ( Meyrick, 1924 )

Kozlov, Mikhail V., 2023, Fairy moths of the genus Nemophora Hoffmannsegg, 1798 (Lepidoptera: Adelidae) of India and Sri Lanka, Zootaxa 5300 (1), pp. 1-81 : 47-48

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5300.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BE92774A-302E-4F18-ABC0-6C3AFD05802F
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8027333
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03B387CB-FA39-FFD8-2AED-1C70EE1FFEA8
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Nemophora smaragdaspis ( Meyrick, 1924 )
status

Treatment

Nemophora smaragdaspis ( Meyrick, 1924) View in CoL View at ENA

( Figs. 61, 62 View FIGURES 57–62 , 105 View FIGURES 93–108 , 136 View FIGURES 134–139 , 166 View FIGURES 163–166 )

Nemotois smaragdaspis: Meyrick 1924: 79 View in CoL .

Holotype ♁: India, Meghalaya, Shillong (25 o 34′ N, 91 o 53′ E); labelled: 8 mm circle with red border, print ‘Holo-│ type’; 6 × 10 mm, black ink ‘Shillong │ Assam │ TBF[letcher]. 5000'. 6.[19]24’; 13 × 14 mm, black ink + print ‘ Nemotois │ smaragdaspis │ 1/1 Meyr. │ E. Meyrick det. │ in Meyrick Coll.’; 6 × 13 mm, print ‘Meyrick Coll. │ B. M. 1938–290’; 3 × 24 mm, black ink ‘ smaragdaspis Meyr. ’; 8 × 20 mm, print ‘ HOLOTYPE ♁ │ Nemotois smarag- │ daspis Meyrick, 1924 │ teste M. Kozlov 2005’ (NHM) [examined].

Nemotois smaragdaspis: Clarke 1955: 287 View in CoL .

Nemophora smaragdaspis: Diakonoff 1951: 171 View in CoL ; Hirowatari & Yamamoto 2004: 30–35; Ji et al. 2018: 896, 898– 900; Das & Singh 2022: 265 View Cited Treatment ; Hirowatari et al. 2022: 391–392, 396–399.

Other material. India. Meghalaya. 2 ♁ 2 ♀, Khasi Hills, 1650 m, 18–23.vi.1928 (Fletcher) ( NHM) ; 1 ♁, ibid., vii.‒ viii.1899 ( MNHN) ; 2 ♁, Shillong, 29.v. (Singh) ( USNM) . Bihar. 1 ♁, Parasnath Hill, 4000 ft, 1858 (Atkinson) . Nepal. 2 ♁, N of Pokhara, Ghale Gaun, 1500 m, 20.iv.2000 (Allen) ; 1 ♀, Godaveri, mixed forest, 1550–1700 m, 2.vi.1984 (Allen) (all in NHM) . 1 ♁, Prov. Nr. 3 East, Jumbling, 1600 m, 3.v.1984 (Dierl) ( ZSM) .

Diagnosis. Nemophora smaragdaspis resembles N. chrysocrossa ( Figs. 43, 44 View FIGURES 41–48 ), N. nitidulella ( Figs. 55, 56 View FIGURES 49–56 ) and N. pyrites ( Figs. 59, 60 View FIGURES 57–62 ) in the forewing colouration and pattern. It differs from N. chrysocrossa by the larger size, ochreous frons, presence of basal spot in the forewing, complete external silver-grey band in the forewing and the relatively long vinculum (3.4–3.7 × length of valva), from N. nitidulella by the narrow yellow band in the forewing fascia and from N. pyrites by shorter PLB, shorter male antennae and thick, apically hook-shaped lateral processes in apical part of phallus.

Description. Male ( Fig. 61 View FIGURES 57–62 ). FWL 6.4–9.0 mm; WLR 0.32–0.38. Vertex ochreous to ochreous brown, frons bright ochreous yellow. Eyes enlarged, closely approaching each other; interocular index 1.0–1.1; occipital distance 0.02– 0.06. PLB 0.3–0.5 × vertical eye diameter (1.00–1.15 × length of scape), yellow to ochreous brown. Proboscis light brown, base with bronze scales. Antenna 2.1–2.4 × FWL; pegs present. Scape dorsally brown, ventrally ochreous yellow; basal part of flagellum (until 0.4 × FWL) dark brown; basal 12–20 flagellomeres dorsally with semi-erect coppery black scales; colour of flagellum at the level of forewing fascia gradually changes to white or grey, in some specimens with rings of brown scales. Tegula and thorax dark brown with brilliant lustre. Forewing ( Fig. 105 View FIGURES 93–108 ) from glossy brilliant green basally to coppery brown apically, shining brilliant to indigo blue, with bright yellow to ochreous medial band of fascia reaching costa at 0.35–0.38 × FWL; width of this band is 0.18–0.23 × FWL at costa and 0.09–0.13 × FWL at dorsum. Medial band on both sides bordered by narrow dark brown lines and then surrounded by glossy silver-grey bands followed by dark brown diffuse bands; proximal band is often reduced to triangular spot reaching 0.3–0.7 × forewing width. The specimen from Parasnath Hill has also a small ochreous spot adjacent to the outer margin of forewing fascia at 0.35 × forewing width. Basal spot small, dark brown. Distal part of forewing sparsely scattered with dark brown scales, which in some specimens form diffuse tornal spot (can be reliably distinguished at high magnification only). Fringe dark brown to bronze. Hindwing from light brown basally to coppery brown apically; costal area grey; medial light yellow spot at costa small, only slightly wider than costal area (clearly visible in specimens from Nepal only); fringe light grey basally to brown apically. Legs bronze to light brown; all tarsomeres ochreous brown to yellow; fore tibia with a tuft of bronze scales. Epiphysis at 0.5, reaching or almost reaching apex of tibia. Abdomen brown to bronze.

Female ( Fig. 62 View FIGURES 57–62 ). FWL 6.1–7.3 mm; WLR 0.37–0.39. Antenna 1.10–1.25 × FWL. Scape ochreous brown; basal 0.50–0.55 of flagellum densely covered with coppery black scales, which are semi-erect distally, at the level of forewing fascia; distal half of flagellum with rings of brown and grey scales on each segment. Yellow spot in the middle of costal margin in hindwing more prominent than in males, reaching 0.35 × hindwing width. Otherwise similar to male.

Male genitalia ( Figs. 136 View FIGURES 134–139 , 166 View FIGURES 163–166 ). Tegumen wide, dome-shaped, with small medial ridge. Socii elongate, 0.8 × diameter of phallus. Vinculum 3.4–4.0 × length of valva, V-shaped, with slightly convex lateral margins and almost straight to gently W-shaped distal margin. Tips of valvae are at about same level as tip of tegumen. Ventral valvar margin with prominent lobe (from 0.60 × length of valva in the specimen from Shillong to 0.85 × length of valva in the specimen from Parasnath Hill) directed posteroventrally (see from the side); dorsal valvar margin almost straight; tip of valva narrowly rounded to pointed. Valvae fused basally up to 0.15–0.25 × total length; their internal margins indistinct. Anellus 0.20–0.45 × length of valva; its proximal margin from wide (2 × diameter of phallus, see from ventral side) in the specimen from Shillong to narrow (1 × diameter of phallus) in the specimen from Parasnath Hill. Transtilla with long medial process. Juxta 0.45–0.55 × length of phallus; arrow head moderately wide (WLR 0.4–0.6), with pointed to narrowly rounded tip and short pointed lateral arms. Phallus 0.95–1.15 × length of vinculum, C-shaped, with two well-sclerotized, apically hook-shaped, processes arising from lateral walls of phallus at 0.7 × its length (counting from its base). Base of phallus narrowly funnel-shaped; tip formed by ventrally directed spoon-shaped lobe with serrate margins.

Distribution. India (Bihar, Meghalaya), Nepal.

Comments. The specimen deposited in MNHN bears an identification label with the manuscript name ‘ croceofasciella ’; however, this name had never been published.

The description above is based on specimens collected from India and Nepal. Importantly, N. smaragdaspis in these countries does not exhibit sexual dimorphism in forewing pattern, which is discovered in specimens from Japan ( Hirowatari &Yamamoto 2004). I suggest three possible explanations for this discrepancy. First, specimens collected in Japan (Honshu) may belong not to N. smaragdaspis but to another, yet undescribed, species. Second, males from Japan may belong to N. smaragdaspis , whereas female of another species could be incorrectly associated with these males. Third, the species could include both monomorphic and dimorphic populations, as it was reported e.g. for the wood tiger moth, Parasemia plantaginis ( Linnaeus, 1758) ( Hegna et al. 2015) . However, the latter explanation seems unlikely, because no geographical variation in expression of sexual dimorphism was found in N. decisella ( Walker, 1863) (sensu lato) ( Kozlov & Robinson 1996), a species which is closely related to N. smaragdaspis ( Hirowatari & Yamamoto 2004) . The taxonomic affinities of two male specimens reported as N. smaragdaspis from Korea, which differ in forewing coloration from the Japanese specimens ( Ji et al. 2018), also remain uncertain. Furthermore, a specimen from Parasnath Hill differs in male genitalia from a specimen from Shillong to such an extent that I intended to describe it as a different species in the current publication. However, keeping in mind all the uncertainties mentioned above, I decided not to perform any action that could affect nomenclature of this species or species group until more specimens are available for both morphological analysis and DNA barcoding.