Aproaerema telaviviella (Amsel, 1935) Bidzilya & Karsholt & Kravchenko & Šumpich, 2019

Bidzilya, Oleksiy, Karsholt, Ole, Kravchenko, Vasiliy & Šumpich, Jan, 2019, An annotated checklist of Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) of Israel with description of two new species, Zootaxa 4677 (1), pp. 1-68 : 17

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4677.1.1
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:11BCCBB0-1FB1-4890-A07C-15C1477EAFD2
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/4C4D8782-2B6B-FFAF-3A85-2887CE168450
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Aproaerema telaviviella (Amsel, 1935)
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Aproaerema telaviviella (Amsel, 1935) View in CoL comb. nov.

Anacampsis telaviviella Amsel, 1935 —Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berl. 20(2): 301, pl. 11, fig. 107.

Records. Amsel 1933: 125; Amsel 1935a: 301, pl. 11, fig. 107; Amsel 1935c: 264; Amsel 1936: 366, pl. 15, fig. 23; Bodenheimer 1937: 101.

Material examined. Syntypes of Anacampsis telaviviella 1 ♀, “ Tel-Aviv ( Düne ), 19.v.1930 H. G. Amsel ” | ”GU. 713” | “ Typus. leg. H. Amsel, Anacampsis telaviviella ” , 1 ♂ (abdomen missing), “ Tel-Aviv, Lichtf. [ang], Düne , 15.v.30 (Pal), H. Amsel ” | “ Paratypus. leg. H. Amsel, Anacampsis telaviviella ” ; 3 ♂, Tel-Aviv ( Düne ), 25.v.1932 (Einsler) (gen. slide 29/18, O. Bidzilya) ; 1 ♂, same place but 21.x.1932 (all SMNK) .

Distribution. Israel.

Remarks. Anacampsis telaviviella was described from an unstated number of specimens collected 19.v. 1930 in Tel-Aviv (“ Tel-Aviv, Düne”). A holotype was not selected in the original description, and two specimens in SMNK should be considered as syntypes. There are three additional males in SMNK collected sympatrically with syntypes of A. languidella 25.v.1932, of which one ( Fig. 17 View FIGS 17–19 ) looks similar to the one of syntype ( Fig. 18 View FIGS 17–19 ) and also bears a type label, but it does not belong to the type series.

The genitalia slide of the female syntype is uninformative, because the antrum is not visible and both ductus bursae and corpus bursae are missing. The male genitalia of a specimen externally similar to A. telaviviella ( Fig. 19 View FIGS 17–19 ), but collected 25.v.1932, look indistinguishable from those of A. anthyllidella and A. languidella . The status of this and the previous species remains unclear and can hardly be clarified without studying morphology and DNA of additional material.