Monopis jussii Kaila, Mutanen, Huemer, Karsholt & Autto, 2020

Mutanen, Marko, Huemer, Peter, Autto, Jonna, Karsholt, Ole & Kaila, Lauri, 2020, Monopis jussii, a new species (Lepidoptera, Tineidae) inhabiting nests of the Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus), ZooKeys 992, pp. 157-181 : 157

Monopis jussii Kaila, Mutanen, Huemer, Karsholt & Autto sp. nov. Figures 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9

Type material.

Holotype ♂ (Figure 3 ): FINLAND, PPe Yli-Kiiminki, larva 2001, ex nest of Aegolius funereus , M. Mutanen leg. R. Gaedike prep. 8607. (ZMUO).

Paratypes. FINLAND • 7 ♂ 16 ♀, PPs Kiiminki, 65.1163°N, 25.8291°E, Larva 1995, ex nest of Aegolius funereus , L. Kaila prep. 6317, 6325, 6326, M. Mutanen leg. (ZMUO); Finland: 10 ♂, 16 ♀, PPe Yli-Kiiminki, larva 2001, ex nest of Aegolius funereus , L. Kaila prep. 6314, 6315, 6316, 6322, 6323, 6324, R. Gaedike prep. 8606, 8607, 8698, DNA samples MM15526, MM17525, M. Mutanen leg. (ZMUO); • 2 ♀, Oba Utajärvi, Pälli, 64.8363°N, 26.21°E, larva 1980 ex nest of Aegolius funereus , J. Itämies leg. (ITJ); • 3 ♂ 3 ♀, Kn Puolanka, Piltunkijärvi, 64.7618°N, 27.3151°E, larva 18.6.1976 ex nest of Aegolius funereus (1974), M. Rikkonen leg. (ZMUO); • 2 ♂, Kn Vaala, Otermajärvi, 64.6724°N, 27.1047°E, larva 12 Jun 1976 ex nest of Aegolius funereus (1974), M. Rikkonen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, Kn Kajaani, 64.2263°N, 27.7932°E, VYÖ 1210 ad luc 15. -21 Jun 2006, DNA sample MM 17523, R. Leinonen leg. (ZMUO). ITALY • 1 ♀, Südtirol, Tiers E, Plafetscher Wald, 1600-1650 m, 46.472°N, 11.596°E, 23 Jun 2006, leg. Huemer, DNA sample TLMF Lep 09795 (TLMF).

Other material.

FINLAND • 7 ♂ 4 ♀, Ta Valkeakoski, Sääksmäki, 61.2326°N, 24.1137°E, ex larva (host unknown); 1992, S. Karhula leg. (MZH); • 2 ♀, Kn Kajaani, Karankalahti, 64.2222°N, 27.721°E, ex larva 2016 from nest of Strix uralensis , Itämies & Kyrki leg. (ZMUO); 1 ♀, PPe: Oulu, Oinaansuo, 65.0249°N, 25.6209°E, larva 28 Apr 1992 in nest of Parus major , J. Itämies leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, EP Jurva, 62.7002°N, 22.0153°E, ex larva 2006, H. Vuorinen leg. (ZMUO); 2 ♀, Ks Kuusamo, 66.2565°N, 29.2807°E, ex larva 1975, J. Viramo leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Ks Salla, Värriö, R1 & R3, 30 Jun 1989 & 21 Jul 1987, Erkki Pulliainen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, Li Inari, Kivijoki, 68.6125°N, 28.3509°E, 15 Jul 1993, E. & L. Laasonen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♂, Ks Kuusamo, Autiotalo, 66.3591°N, 29.6029°E, 28 Jun 1995, E. & L. Laasonen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♂, PPn Rovaniemi, 66.5509°N, 25.7619°E, 17 Jun 1992, T. Mutanen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, EnL Enontekiö, Saana, 69.0456°N, 20.8554°E, 11 Jul 2016, Marko, Nestori & Anttoni Mutanen leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, Pedersöre, 8 Jul 1939, Sjöholm leg. (ZMUO); • 1 ♀, Om Jakobstad, 63.7098°N, 22.6489°E, 21 Jun 1936, E. Sjöholm leg. (ZMUO); 2 ♂, KP Haapajärvi, Harjunniemi, 63.7434°N, 25.3292°E, ad luc. 3 Jul 1975 & 6 Jul 1975, A. Kosonen leg. (ZMUO); NORWAY • Finnmark Alta, Mattisfossen-Sakkopadne, 5 Jul 1973, J. Kyrki leg. (ZMUO); SWEDEN • Härjedalen, Vemdalen, 3 Jul 1947, Henrik Bruun leg. (ZMUO).

Diagnosis.

Monopis jussii sp. nov. is externally close to M. laevigella , but the forewing appears darker, as it is less mottled with pale scales, especially along the margins (Figures 4 , 5 ). Fringes are yellow and with a clear fringe line in M. laevigella but grey and without the fringe line in M. jussii . Besides the genetic markers, the forewing colour is indeed the best clue to separate these species. There is nevertheless some variation, especially in M. laevigella . Both male and female genitalia vary considerably, as do those of M. laevigella . The variation in all characters of genitalia overlaps between these species, and, apparently, they cannot be identified by genital characters. For variation of M. laevigella see also Gaedike (2019). Moreover, M. weaverella (Scott, 1858) and M. neglecta Šumpich & Liška, 2011 may occasionally fall within the morphological variation of these two species, especially in females. The males of M. weaverella and M. neglecta can however be distinguished from M. laevigella and M. jussii by the shape of gnathos, best decipherable in lateral view (see Gaedike 2019): gnathos arms are straight, triangular in M. weaverella and M. neglecta , angled particularly in anterior margin in M. laevigella and M. jussii .

Description.

Forewing length 5.8-8.5 mm (n = 8 ♂ and 8 ♀) (note that the specimens are reared which may have affected their size). Maxillary palpus, labial palpus and head ochreous yellow; outer side of labial palpus with dark grey scales, second segment distally bristled. Scape of antenna ochre with pecten formed of bristle-shaped scales, pedicel and flagellum dark brown. Thorax dark grey, dorsomedially variably intermixed or entirely with pale ochre scales; tegula dark grey, apically often paler grey or ochre. Fore and mid leg inwardly ochre, outwardly leaden grey, apex of tibia and tarsal segments ochre. Hind leg inwardly pale, outwardly ochre, intermixed with grey scales; spurs and apex of tibia and tarsal articles ochre. Forewing dark grey, variably mottled with pale grey scales; costa narrowly and variably sometimes ochre; basal scales of termen with alternating pale ochre and grey scales, distal scales of termen unicolorous grey, contrast between distally paler basal scales and darker distal scales giving an impression of faint fringe line; silvery grey spot somewhat basal of middle of wing length at fold. Hind wing bluish grey with somewhat darker grey veins; fringe basally narrowly ochre, otherwise grey. Underside of wings grey with ochre margin; underside of hindwing dark grey along costal margin. Abdomen leaden grey, basal segments ventrally more or less ochre.

Male genitalia (Figure 6 ). Uncus elongate, triangular, laterally with long, hair-like scales, distally pointed, bifid. Gnathos arms angled in the middle, tapered toward hook-shaped apex. Basal and distal margins of tegumen reinforced, U-shaped, anterior margin more deeply. Shape of valva highly variable, gradually varying from ovoid and basally broadest to somewhat elongate and medially widest; distally round. Every aspect of saccus variable; straight or somewhat undulate, apically little or very much widened; length also very variable. Phallus straight and nearly parallel-sided, slightly widened at basal 1/3; length compared to that of saccus impossible to establish due to variation in length of saccus. Phallus distally inserted in cylindrical, internally spinose anellus. Vesica distally densely spinose, devoid of cornuti.

Female genitalia (Figures 7 - 9 ). Papilla analis membranous, elongate, distally round, with a few setae. Apophysis posterioris as long as segments 7+8, posteriorly starting as continuation of papilla analis, slender, anteriorly slightly widened, apex cut. Apophysis anterioris 1/3 length of and slightly stouter than apophysis posterioris, twice as long as 8th segment, distally not widened. Ovipositor telescopic, with two retractile nodes; with a few stout setae. Ventral pseudapodemes (sensu Davis and Robinson 1999) not decipherable. Tergum 8 posteriorly somewhat sclerotized. Ostium a widely U-shaped opening, laterally bordered as posteriorly curved rim, laterad shallowly emarginated in posterior direction, emargination with a few long setae; devoid of microtrichia but minutely granulose. Length of antrum variable, narrowed toward colliculum; colliculum tubular, length variable, 2-4 times as long as wide, usually narrowed in the middle. Ductus bursae between colliculum and corpus bursae membranous, as long as apophysis anterioris. Corpus bursae oval, 3 times as long as wide; in approximately the middle to posterior 1/3 ca. 12 elongate, sharply spicular or dentate signa forming transverse band.

Genetic characterisation.

Clearly distinguishable by its DNA barcode from all other species of Monopis barcoded globally so far (Figure 1 ). Genetically the closest species with a minimum divergence of 4.43% is M. laevigella . Intraspecific divergence among four barcoded specimens from Finland and Italy is 0.15%. Additionally, the species show 1.5-4.1% interspecific divergence in the nuclear genes of CAD, EF-1a, MDH and wingless (Figure 2 ).

Etymology.

The species is dedicated to Dr Juhani (Jussi) Itämies, a Finnish expert of Lepidoptera who, as far as we know, is the first to have reared this species. He has also spent most of his life on faunistic research of Finnish Lepidoptera and has done incredible work in elucidating the life history of numerous microlepidopteran species.

Distribution.

From our available observations M. jussii seems to have a boreo-montane distribution pattern. It is widely distributed in Finland and also recorded from Norway (Finnmark) and Sweden ( Härjedalen). Records from the Alps seem rare with a proved, barcode-based locality in the Italian Dolomites and two further unpublished records (ZSM, A. Segerer) in the Bavarian Alps.

Biology.

So far reared on five different occasions from the nest bottoms of the Boreal owl ( Aegolius funereus ). Two specimens in the collection of ZMUO have been reared from the nest of the Ural owl ( Strix uralensis ) and one specimen from the nest of the Great tit ( Parus major ). Additionally, three reared specimens of two different rearing events do not state anything about the origin. One specimen has been found in a vacated house. Thirteen specimens in coll. ZMUO and a specimen from the Italian Alps in coll. TLMF have been collected in the wild between 17 June to 21 July, which matches well with the flight time of other Monopis species of these regions.

Taxonomic remarks on Monopis laevigella

Monopis jussii sp. nov. is most closely related to M. laevigella and can easily be confused with that species (see above). We therefore re-evaluate available names in the M. laevigella species group.

Monopis laevigella ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775).

Tinea laevigella [Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775: 139.

Misidentifications

Tinea rusticella Hübner, 1796: 61, pl. 3, fig. 17; a junior synonym of Haplotinea insectella (Fabricius, 1794) (Zeller, 1852: 153-154).

Recurvaria rustica Haworth, 1828: 548; unjustified emendation of Tinea rusticella Hübner, 1796.

Tinea saturella Haworth, 1828: 562, unavailable.

Tinea vestianella sensu Stephens, 1835: 344; a misidentification of Phalaena (Tinea) vestianella Linnaeus, 1758.

Blabophanes rusticella ab. semispilotella Strand, 1900: 225; unavailable name, deemed infrasubspecific according to ICZN Art. 45.6.2 from use of the term “ab.”; a misidentification of M. weaverella (Scott, 1858) ( Gaedike 2019).

Neotype selection

Tinea laevigella was described from an unspecified number of specimens collected in the area of Vienna, Austria ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775). The collection was later deposited in the “Hof-Naturalien-Kabinett” and destroyed by fire during the Vienna Rebellion on 31st of October 1848 ( Speta 2003). Since this species can be confused with M. jussii sp. nov. and several other congeneric taxa we designate as neotype a male specimen from Austria to preserve stability (Figure 10 ). It is labelled "AUSTRIA occ. Nordtirol / Brandenberg / Tiefenbachklamm / 11°51'52"E, 47°29'4"N / 645 m, 16.6.2013 / leg. Huemer" "DNA Barcode / TLMF Lep 10354" (TLMF).

Tinea rusticella was figured twice by Hübner in the eighth volume of his Sammlung europäischer Schmetterlinge, first it was validly described on page 61, pl. 3, fig. 17 (1796) and later a different species was figured on pl. 49, fig. 339 (1813). Hübner (1825) considered them conspecific, and he referred to both figures when he erected the monotypic genus Monopis .

Zeller (1852) was probably the first to question whether Hübner’s two figures of Tinea rusticella represented the same species. He referred to Hübner’s fig. 339 (1813) when dealing with the species, which became known as Monopis rusticella [= Monopis laevigella ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775)], and rejected that Hübner’s fig. 17 (1796) could be of a specimen of that species, suggesting that it could be Tinea misella Zeller, 1839 [= Haplotinea insectella (Fabricius, 1794)]. Tinea rusticella Hübner, 1813 is both a misidentification and a homonym of Tinea rusticella Hübner, 1796 and thus permanently invalid.

Haworth (1828: 548) named the species twice. First with reference to Hübner’s pl. 3, fig. 17 as Recurvaria rustica , which is an unjustified emendation and thus an objective synonym of Tinea rusticella ( Hübner, 1796) [= Haplotinea insectella (Fabricius)], and later in the same work Haworth (op. cit.: 339), again with reference to Hübner’s pl. 3, fig. 17, proposed the name Tinea saturella in synonymy with Tinea rusticella . Because Tinea saturella was described in synonymy with Tinea rusticella it was always considered a synonym of that species (viz. Monopis rusticella ), but because Haworth referred only to Hübner’s fig. 17 (and not to fig. 339) it is an objective junior synonym of Tinea rusticella Hübner, 1796, and thereby a subjective junior synonym of Haplotinea insectella (Fabricius). However, as the name Tinea saturella has never been made available under the provision of Art. 11.6. of the Code ( ICZN 1999) and adopted as the name of a taxon before 1961, we consider it as unavailable.

Although Monopis Hübner 1825 was described as a monotypic genus, it is based on a partly misidentified species. We consider Zeller (1852) as First Reviser of Tinea rusticella Hübner, restricting the name to the species now (and also by Zeller 1852) known as Monopis laevigella ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775).

Figures

Figure 1. A compressed Neighbor-Joining tree DNA barcode region of European Monopis with most European species represented. The depth of the triangle is proportional to the intraspecific genetic variability within species and the height to sampling intensity.

Figure 2. Comparison of genetic variability in four nuclear genes, CAD, EF- 1 a, MDH and wingless, between Monopis laevigella and M. jussii sp. nov.

Figure 3. The holotype male of Monopis jussii sp. nov. PPe Yli-Kiiminki, larva 2001, ex nest of Aegolius funereus, M. Mutanen leg., R. Gaedike prep. 8607. (Coll. ZMUO).

Figure 4. Comparison of habitus between Monopis laevigella and M. jussii sp. nov. A-C M. laevigella female D-F M. laevigella male G-I M. jussii paratype, females J-L M. jussii paratype, males.

Figure 5. Comparison of forewing patterns of Monopis laevigella (A) and M. jussii sp. nov. (B). The arrows indicate differences in fringe colour (yellow / grey), fringe line (present / absent; chequered / non-chequered) and forewing costa (many white scales between the costa and the dorsal spot / few white scales between the costa and the dorsal spot).

Figure 6. Overview of male genitalia of Monopis jussii sp. nov. A paratype, Finland, Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6317 B Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6315.

Figure 7. Overview of female genitalia of Monopis jussii sp. nov., paratype, Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6324.

Figure 8. Details of ostium bursae and colliculum of female genitalia of Monopis jussii sp. nov. A paratype, Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6324 B paratype, Finland, Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6325 C paratype, Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6322 D paratype, Finland, Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6326.

Figure 9. Signa of corpus bursae of female genitalia of Monopis jussii sp. nov. A paratype, Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6324 B paratype, Finland, Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6325 C paratype, Finland, Yli-Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6322 D paratype, Finland, Kiiminki, M. Mutanen leg., L. Kaila prep. 6326.

Figure 10. Neotype male of Monopis laevigella from Austria, here designated. AUSTRIA occ. Nordtirol / Brandenberg / Tiefenbachklamm / 11 ° 51 ' 52 " E, 47 ° 29 ' 4 " N / 645 m, 16.6.2013 / leg. Huemer " " DNA Barcode / TLMF Lep 10354 ". (Coll. TLMF).