Eadmuna pulverula (Schaus, 1896) Schaus, 1896

St. Laurent, Ryan A. & Dombroskie, Jason J., 2015, Revision of the genus Eadmuna Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonidae) with a description of a new species from French Guiana, ZooKeys 494, pp. 51-68 : 59-62

Taxon classification Animalia Lepidoptera Mimallonidae

Eadmuna pulverula (Schaus, 1896) comb. n. Figs 8, 17, 18

Perophora pulverula Schaus, 1896

Cicinnus pulverula ; Schaus 1928

Cicinnus pulverula ; Becker 1996

Type material.

Holotype: BRAZIL, São Paulo, Wm. Schaus collection, USNM holotype No.:12563- St Laurent diss: 11-1-14:8 [examined] [♀, USNM]. Paratypes: none. Type locality: BRAZIL, São Paulo.

Diagnosis.

Similar to female of Eadmuna paloa but the forewing apex is more falcate, the forewing discal hyaline patch slightly smaller, and with a distinct, thin dark line along the venter of the abdomen from the thorax to the distal end.

The papillae anales in Eadmuna pulverula are much broader and stockier than in Eadmuna paloa , the apophyses anteriores and posteriores are approximately the same length in Eadmuna pulverula whereas the apophyses posteriores are shorter than the apophyses anteriores in Eadmuna paloa . Sclerotized, ribbon-like plates are located on the venter of the eighth abdominal segments in both species, but those of Eadmuna pulverula are wider and angled inward toward each other medially, but are more parallel in Eadmuna paloa . Finally, the corpus bursae of Eadmuna pulverula lacks any sclerotized structure, but in Eadmuna paloa , this is the most distinctive trait of the genitalia.

Description.

Female.Head: Antennae bipectinate. Thorax: As for female of Eadmuna paloa . Legs: As for female of Eadmuna paloa , but small scales nearly completely cover tibial spurs. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 24 mm, n=1. As for female of Eadmuna paloa but with slightly more pronounced apex and overall darker coloration and heavier speckling due to higher number of petiolate scales. Hyaline discal mark smaller. Postmedial line present, darker, thicker, brown, dentate, narrowly interrupted by veins, dark wedge where postmedial line meets costa. Antemedial lines present, bilobed, B-shaped, but straighter. Forewing venter: As for dorsum, postmedial line more contrasting. Hindwing dorsum: Coloration as for forewing though lighter overall, anal angle accentuated. Postmedial line dentate, dark, well pronounced, narrowly interrupted by veins, slightly lighter than that of forewing. No hyaline patches present. Hindwing venter: As for dorsum, but lighter, especially in antemedial area. Wing venation: As for genus. Abdomen: Very robust, color similar to that of thorax, though yellowing somewhat in holotype, likely due to age of specimen. Longitudinal dark line along middle of abdominal venter formed by darkbrown, thin, petiolate scales. Genitalia: n=1. Papillae anales stocky, somewhat triangular, covered in fine setae, apophyses posteriors and anteriores of similar length, though apophyses posteriors slightly thicker, only one of each apophysis present in holotype specimen due to damage. Ductus bursae short, corpus bursae small, baglike, without signum or cornuti. Remnants of appendix bursae visible. Wide, elongated, sclerotized plates present of venter of eighth segment, curving inward toward each other, roughly midway along their length. Male. Unknown.

Distribution.

Known only from the type specimen, collected in São Paulo; no further locality information is available. Distribution is represented in Fig. 18 by a green placeholder star near the center of the state of São Paulo; however, it may be inferred from the distributions of Eadmuna esperans and Eadmuna paloa that Eadmuna pulverula likely ranges farther to the east in the state of São Paulo nearer to the coastal Atlantic Forest.

Remarks.

The holotype of Perophora pulverula was determined to be a female of an Eadmuna species due to its close similarity to female Eadmuna paloa from Santa Catarina, Brazil. Despite the fact that female Eadmuna had not been recognized prior to this work, it can be reasonably determined that the females from Santa Catarina are in fact Eadmuna paloa (see remarks of Eadmuna paloa ) whereas the female of Eadmuna pulverula most likely represent a distinct species based on differences in genitalia.

Unfortunately, the genitalia of the holotype of Eadmuna pulverula are not intact (see Fig. 17) and thus are not entirely available for study. However, the genitalia characters that are present are very distinct from either of the Santa Catarina Eadmuna paloa females, which were both similar to each other. The size differences between the two taxa are among the most striking. Although the overall size of the females of Eadmuna paloa and Eadmuna pulverula are very similar, the genitalia of Eadmuna pulverula are nearly twice as large as those of Eadmuna paloa in all respects.

It is possible that Eadmuna pulverula is the unidentified female of Eadmuna esperans due to process of elimination in that the only Eadmuna known to occur in southern and southeastern Brazil are Eadmuna paloa and Eadmuna esperans and the female of Eadmuna paloa has been identified. However, there is not enough evidence to support Eadmuna pulverula and Eadmuna esperans as being conspecific. A major problem with considering Eadmuna pulverula to be the female of Eadmuna esperans is the wing color. Females of Eadmuna paloa are so similar to conspecific males that one would expect the female of Eadmuna esperans also to be very similar to conspecific males, and not exhibit the extreme dimorphism that would be present if Eadmuna pulverula was considered conspecific with Eadmuna esperans . Extreme sexual dimorphism in wing color and pattern is not common in Mimallonidae , aside from the fact that females are usually larger than males, with much broader wings (R. A. St Laurent pers. obs.). In actuality, Eadmuna pulverula is very similar to female Eadmuna paloa , with major differences only in the genitalia.

The genitalia of Eadmuna pulverula are so distinct from the females of Eadmuna paloa that it becomes impossible to consider them the same entity which, based on wing morphology alone, would have been the most logical conclusion pending further evidence. The most conservative approach in dealing with the name Eadmuna pulverula is to transfer it to Eadmuna from Cicinnus due to the female holotype bearing a striking similarity to female Eadmuna paloa , but to maintain it as a valid species rather than trying to associate it with cryptic males currently considered Eadmuna paloa or attributing it to Eadmuna esperans by mere process of elimination. Until female Eadmuna esperans are accurately associated with the easily recognizable males, the current placement of Eadmuna pulverula remains somewhat inconclusive.