Menevia parostia (Schaus, 1928) Schaus, 1928

St. Laurent, Ryan A. & Dombroskie, Jason J., 2016, Revision of the genus Menevia Schaus, 1928 (Lepidoptera, Mimallonoidea, Mimallonidae) with the description of 11 new species, ZooKeys 566, pp. 31-116 : 63-64

Taxon classification Animalia Lepidoptera Mimallonidae

Menevia parostia (Schaus, 1928) comb. n. Figs 38, 96

Pamea parostia Schaus, 1928: 667

Pamea perostia ; Becker 1996, misspelling

Type material.

Holotype, ♀: UNKNOWN: Type No. 33592 U.S.N.M./ Pamea parostia type Schaus/ USNM-Mimal: 1107/ St. Laurent diss.: 4-20-15:7/ (USNM) [examined]. Type locality: Unknown.

Diagnosis.

Menevia parostia can be differentiated from Menevia ostia by the placement of the postmedial line of the hindwing, which is roughly midway along the length of the hindwing in Menevia ostia and closer to the wing margin in Menevia parostia . Furthermore, the sclerotized bands on the venter of the VIII abdominal segment are very thin in Menevia parostia . Lack of material and variability of this structure, however, belies its diagnostic capability. Additionally, most (93%, n = 15) female specimens of Menevia ostia are much larger than those of Menevia parostia . This holotype of Menevia parostia does not differ remarkably from the single definitive female of Menevia pallida (see remarks).

Description.

Male. Unknown. Female.Head: Straw colored, eyes bordered posteriorly by dark brown collar of scales reaching labial palpi, labial palpi moderately long, reaching beyond frons, segments somewhat well defined ventrally, dorsally with darker scales contrasting with overall lighter coloration. Scape and pedicel weakly tufted. Thorax: As for genus. Straw colored. Legs: As for genus. Tibial spurs relatively thick, long, almost completely scaled except ventrally. Forewing dorsum: Forewing length: 18 mm, n = 1. Subtriangular, rounded, apical quarter of outer margins weakly concave, apex slightly falcate. Ground color pale tan-yellow, moderately speckled by dark petiolate scales. Discal spot faintly marked by gray. Apex marked by black scales near tip of apical dash. Postmedial line brown, mostly straight. Submarginal area pale gray, postmedial lunule originating from near where apical dash meets postmedial line, lunule follows postmedial line from apex to one quarter length of postmedial line where lunule smoothly curves outward toward wing margin becoming somewhat diffuse, forming acute angle with postmedial line. Faint white accessory mark present near tornus. Antemedial line very faint, brown, undulating. Forewing venter: As in forewing dorsum but more heavily speckled, postmedial line bent outwards near tornus, antemedial line absent, discal spot present, small, black. Hindwing dorsum: Rounded, similar coloration and patterning as forewings, postmedial lunule very vague, wavy, not zigzagged, originating near anterior wing margin, following curvature of wing margin, not steeply swept to margin, antemedial area lighter, postmedial line weakly curved, closer to wing margin than midway along wing length. Hindwing venter: Following similar pattern as forewing venter but discal mark absent, marginal area color as surrounding area. Abdomen: As for genus but stouter. Coloration a continuation of thoracic color. Midventral stripe absent. Sternite of VIII as pair of thin sclerotized bands not touching near anterior margin, bowed out slightly mesally. Genitalia: (Fig. 96) n = 1. VIII prominently sclerotized laterally, appendicular apophyses present. Tergite of VIII arch-like, converging mesally to form posteriorly directed point. Apophyses anteriores slightly shorter than apophyses posteriores. Lamella antevaginalis as semicircular, sclerotized band. Ductus bursae short. Papillae anales rectangular when viewed ventrally, covered in short setae.

Distribution.

Unfortunately the holotype is without locality information, furthermore, Schaus’s original ( 1928) description listed the “habitat” as “unknown.”

Remarks.

Schaus (1928) described Pamea parostia , known only from the female holotype, based on its resemblance to Menevia ostia , differing only by its smaller size, “reduced” markings, and the "more developed" frenulum. Upon examining the holotype and comparing it with the much larger female holotype of Menevia ostia and a series of mostly larger females from Costa Rica, we found that Schaus was incorrect in his assertion that the frenulum of Menevia parostia is more developed, when in fact the frenulum appears to be of the same size and arrangement in examined Menevia ostia females. Schaus frequently failed to locate the frenulum despite its presence, as shown by previous authors ( Pearson 1951, 1984, St Laurent and Dombroskie 2015). Furthermore, the size difference between Menevia parostia and Menevia ostia is certainly not enough evidence to maintain Menevia parostia as a valid species. Among the Menevia ostia specimens from Costa Rica that were examined in this work, one female specimen from Tomatera was actually smaller than the holotype of Menevia parostia , along with a similarly very small male. Public barcode data shows this smaller pair of Menevia ostia display no differences whatsoever from regularly sized Menevia ostia from nearby locations (BOLD). Many species of Mimallonidae frequently display dwarfed specimens (R. A. St. Laurent pers. obs.), perhaps due to poor host plant assimilation or other environmental factors, potentially explaining the small size of the single pair of Menevia ostia .

The presence of such small specimens of Menevia ostia originally lead us to believe that Menevia parostia must be just another small example of this species, well within the natural size range and we were prepared to synonymize Menevia parostia with Menevia ostia . However, additional examination of the holotype of Menevia parostia revealed characters of the hindwing maculation and genitalia that were not seen in any examined Menevia ostia . The paired sternites of VIII in Menevia parostia are slightly thinner overall in comparison to those of Menevia ostia , but this character is rather variable in general. A more dramatic difference is found in the arrangement of the hindwing postmedial line between the two species (see Figs 36, 37 compared with 38). The holotype of Menevia parostia is strikingly similar to a female specimen of Menevia pallida in relative size, coloration, and arrangement of the hindwing postmedial line. Unfortunately, the abdomen of the female Menevia pallida is missing and thus a genitalia comparison cannot be performed. It is quite possible that Menevia pallida is a junior synonym of Menevia parostia , but without locality data, the abdomen of the female Menevia pallida , or true males of Menevia parostia , we cannot render this conclusion definitive. Pending further data, we therefore retain both Menevia parostia and Menevia pallida as valid species.