Camptopleura cincta Mabille and Boullet, 1917

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 : 33-34

Camptopleura cincta Mabille and Boullet, 1917 , new status

Camptopleura iphicrates var. cincta Mabille and Boullet, 1917 (type locality Colombia, Bolivia) is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Camptopleura auxo (Möschler, 1879) (type locality Colombia). We sequenced a syntype of C. i. var. cincta from Bolivia (NVG-18078D02) in MNHP and found that it is not monophyletic with C. auxo syntype (NVG-15033B06) in the ZMHB ( Fig. 7 ). Instead, it appears to be a distinct species closely related to Camptopleura theramenes Mabille, 1877 (type locality Colombia). The COI barcodes of the C. i. var. cincta syntype and C. theramenes specimen from Costa Rica differ by 6.2% (41 bp). Therefore, it is incorrect to keep C. i. var. cincta as a synonym of C. auxo , and we propose to consider C. i. var. cincta a species-level taxon pending further studies: Camptopleura cincta Mabille and Boullet, 1917 , new status.

Achlyodes impressus Mabille, 1889 is a junior subjective synonym of Camptopleura orsus (Mabille, 1889) , reinstated status

Achlyodes orsus Mabille, 1889 (type locality Venezuela: Puerto Cabello) is treated as a junior subjective synonym of Nisoniades mimas (Cramer, 1775) (type locality Suriname) ( Mielke 2005). We sequenced the holotype of Achlyodes orsus (NVG-15034D08) in the ZMHB and it is in the same clade with a syntype of Achlyodes impressus Mabille, 1889 (type locality Panama: Chiriqui) (NVG-15033A11) in the ZMHB ( Fig. 7 ). These two primary type specimens are phenotypically similar and their COI barcodes are only 0.3% (2 bp) different. Therefore we conclude that they are conspecific. The type specimens of these taxa mostly agree with the original descriptions and/or illustrations ( Mabille 1889a; Mabille 1889b), and according to their labels are the true type specimens of these taxa. One issue is that the original description of A. orsus does not fully agree with the original illustration ( Mabille 1889a), therefore some errors have been made. The first two lines of the back-to-back descriptions of A. orsus and A. oiclus (currently Telemiades oiclus (Mabille, 1889)) are identical (they seem to describe A. oiclus ), surely by mistake ( Mabille 1889a). However, the original illustration is in agreement with the ZMHB specimen NVG-15034D08, and therefore, taking into account appropriate labels on this specimen (“Origin”, “achl. orsus | ♂ Mb.” (in Mabille handwriting), “Pto Cabello”, “Coll. Staudinger”), it is the holotype. According to Lamas (2021) and original publications ( Mabille 1889a; Mabille 1889b), the name orsus was published on January 15, 1889 and the name impressus was published on March 15, 1889. Therefore, we propose that Achlyodes impressus Mabille, 1889 is a junior subjective synonym of Camptopleura orsus (Mabille, 1889) , reinstated status.

Figures

Figure 7. Genomic tree of Erynnini. See Fig. 1 legend for notations.