Salantoia gildo ( Mabille, 1888 ) Zhang & Cong & Shen & Grishin, 2022

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui & Grishin, Nick V., 2022, Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), Insecta Mundi 2022 (921), pp. 1-135 : 12

Salantoia gildo ( Mabille, 1888) , new combination, reinstated status

Treated as a junior subjective synonym of Salatis cebrenus ( Cramer, 1777) (type locality Suriname) since Evans (1952), Telegonus gildo Mabille, 1888 (type locality Brazil: Amazonas, Coary) has significantly broader spots on forewing compared to S. cebrenus . Sequencing of the T. gildo syntype (NVG-15031H01) in the ZMHB reveals that it is in the same clade with Eudamus eriopis Hewitson, 1867 , the type species of Salantoia Grishin, 2019 , and is not monophyletic with Salatis Evans, 1952 (type species Papilio salatis Stoll, 1782 ) or Euriphellus Austin, 2008 (type species Papilio euribates Stoll, 1782 ) ( Fig. 1 ). In male genitalia, T. gildo shares the following characters with S. eriopis : uncus longer and narrower than in Salatis , penis not narrowing distad, and harpe with distal short spike or spikes instead of being rounded as in Salatis . In wing patterns, T. gildo and S. eriopis have two or three conspicuous subapical white spots, while Salatis species mostly have one (sometimes vestigial) ( Evans 1952). Therefore, T. gildo belongs to Salantoia and not to Salatis or Euriphellus , and we reinstate it as a species-level taxon Salantoia gildo ( Mabille, 1888) , new combination. To stabilize nomenclature, the sole syntype in the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany (ZMHB) with the following eight rectangular labels || Origin. || Coary | Hhnl || Tel. gildo ♂ Mab. || Gildo | Mab. || Gildo | Mab. || GEN.PREP., | MIELKE | 1996 || [barcode image] http://coll. mfn-berlin.de/u/ | 940b47 || DNA sample ID: | NVG-15031H01 | c/o Nick V. Grishin || is hereby designated by Grishin as the lectotype of Telegonus gildo Mabille, 1888 .

Furthermore, a specimen of the species that Evans misidentified as S. cebrenus (NVG-17104C01) is placed near the base of Evans’ “ Bungalotis Sub-group” (excluding Dyscophellus Godman and Salvin, 1893 and Euriphellus Austin, 2008 ) clade and does not fall into any existing genera ( Fig. 1 ). We see that it is away from Euriphellus (where the true Papilio cebrenus and Telegonus mutius Plötz, 1882 belong), away from Salantoia (where Telegonus gildo belongs), and away from Salatis (where Evans (1952) placed it). We see that Evans’ “ S. cebrenus ” has neither genus nor species name applicable to it, and it is named here below.

Figures

Figure 1. Genomic tree of Eudaminae. The tree is constructed from protein-coding regions. The tree is rooted with Pterourus glaucus (Linnaeus, 1758) (NVG-1670), not shown. Statistical support values are shown on nodes. For each specimen, its name adopted in this work is given first, and a previously used name is listed in square brackets (if different), supplemented with the DNA sample number, type status (see Table 2 caption for abbreviations) and general locality. See Table S1 in the Supplemental file for additional data about these specimens. Synonyms are given in parentheses preceded by “=”, and in addition by “‡” for unavailable names. The type status refers to this synonym, if the synonym name is provided. Clades corresponding to new genera, subgenera and species are colored in red, orange and green, respectively, and the names of new taxa are highlighted accordingly. Names of selected tribes, subtribes, genera, and subgenera are labeled at their clades. Clades corresponding to some genera are highlighted in yellow to compare their genetic diversifications (length of the highlight in horizontal dimension) with each other. Groups of similar genetic diversification would ideally correspond to genera. The