Lurama penia (Dognin, 1919)

St. Laurent, Ryan A., 2016, Revisions of the genera Lurama Schaus, 1928 and Ulmara Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonoidea, Mimallonidae) with the descriptions of three new Ulmara species and a new genus, ZooKeys 611, pp. 57-92 : 61-62

Taxon classification Animalia Lepidoptera Mimallonidae

Lurama penia (Dognin, 1919) Fig. 1; Map 1

Perophora penia Dognin, 1919: 6, 7

Lurama penia ; Schaus 1928

Lurama penia ; Gaede 1931

Lurama penia ; Becker 1996

Type material.

Holotype, ♂. COLOMBIA: Cundinamarca/Distrito Capital: Bogota [ Bogotá], Colombia, 28-3200 m, Coll. Fassl / Dognin, Collection/ Perophora penia , type ♂ Dgn./ ♂ genitalia slide. 6 June '28, C.H. #5. [genitalia prep. not located]/ [label with wing vein sketch]/ [Holo]Type No.: 29698 U.S.N.M./ USNM-Mimal: 1108/ (USNM, examined). Type locality: Colombia: Cundinamarca/Distrito Capital: Bogotá.

Diagnosis.

Lurama penia can be distinguished from Lurama quindiuna by the smaller size, shorter, more rounded wings, and somewhat more diffuse, broader postmedial and antemedial lines on the wings. The lines are also closer together and farther from the wing margin than in Lurama quindiuna . Additionally, the forewing postmedial line has its apical angle intersecting Rs4 very near the fork of Rs3+Rs4, rather than being much more distant from this fork in the other species.

Description.

Male.Head: As for genus but tan brown. Thorax: Coloration as for head, darker-brown scales present on prothorax. Legs: Coloration as for thorax, poorly preserved. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 14.5 mm, wingspan: ~27 mm, n = 1. Short, vaguely triangular, margin nearly straight from apex until after passing M3 where wing smoothly curves toward anal margin. Ground color yellowish tan, overall lightly speckled by dark petiolate scales, especially postmedially. Antemedial line brown, relatively wide, somewhat diffuse, slightly curving outward. Postmedial line nearly straight from anal margin to Rs4 where it abruptly angles toward costa perpendicularly, coloration and width as for antemedial line. Antemedial, medial, and postmedial areas concolorous. Costa and outer wing margin darker brown. Discal spot a dark streak spanning width of discal cell, mesally slightly angled inward toward cell. Forewing ventrum: Similar to dorsum but with more concentrated speckling postmedially; antemedial line nearly absent, postmedial line fainter. Hindwing dorsum: Coloration as for forewing dorsum, antemedial line absent, postmedial line not reaching anterior wing margin. Hindwing ventrum: Following same pattern as forewing ventrum but postmedial line curved outward rather than straight as on dorsum. Abdomen: Partially missing, but anterior segments concolorous with thorax. Genitalia: Not examined. Female. Unknown.

Distribution

(Map 1). Lurama penia is known only from the holotype, collected between 2800 and 3200 m near Bogotá, Colombia.

Remarks.

This species is apparently very rarely collected, as it is known only from the male holotype. Unfortunately, the genitalia preparation of the holotype, probably made by Carl Heinrich (R. Hutchings pers. comm.), is lost and could not be located by the individuals tasked with trying to find it at the USNM. Schaus (1928) compared the genitalia of Lurama to that of Ulmara , and considered them similar. I note that among Schaus’s examined Lurama material at the USNM and MNHU, the only dissected male Lurama specimen is the holotype of Lurama penia ; therefore it is reasonable to assume that the missing genitalia of Lurama penia are similar to those of Ulmara because apparently Schaus did not look at any other Lurama dissections. This is expected given the similarity between Ulmara male genitalia and those of Lurama quindiuna , for which the male genitalia are available for examination.

As for Lurama quindiuna below, the issue of missing type genitalia for these two species results in some difficulties determining the identity of non-type specimens. Fortunately, external diagnostic characteristics are ample enough to maintain both currently described species as valid, but prevents me from describing new species in the genus at this time. It is vital that more material be located for this and the following species at each of their respective type localities so that more conclusive diagnostic characters can be given, particularly in regards to the genitalia.