Bryophilinae

Keegan, Kevin L., Rota, Jadranka, Zahiri, Reza, Zilli, Alberto, Wahlberg, Niklas, Schmidt, B. Christian, Lafontaine, J. Donald, Goldstein, Paul Z. & Wagner, David L., 2021, Toward a Stable Global Noctuidae (Lepidoptera) Taxonomy, Insect Systematics and Diversity (AIFB) 5 (3), pp. 1-24 : 20

Bryophilinae

Like with Eriopinae , we found Bryophilinae to be poorly supported as a distinct subfamily, grouping within Noctuinae ( Fig. 5). We found the Nearctic genus Gloanna Nye, 1975 , currently recognized in Amphipyrinae , to be well supported in Bryophilinae (BS = 100, SH = 100, UF = 100). Another Nearctic genus currently recognized in Amphipyrinae that we were unable to include in our dataset, Eviridemas Barnes & Benjamin, 1929 , is superficially similar to Gloanna and COI barcodes suggest a close relationship between the two genera.Although bryophilines possess no known synapomorphies in genitalic structure, both Gloanna and Eviridemas have relatively unmodified or simple genitalia, consistent with other New World members of the subfamily.

Our analysis placed Bryophilinae among the basally branching Noctuinae lineages, consistent with the molecular findings of Mitchell et al. (2006), Zahiri et al. (2013), and Regier et al. (2016). Adult characters diagnostic for the Noctuinae as it is currently configured, are not immediately apparent in bryophilines. For example, the clasper on the valve (when present) does not have an obvious strut or rod connecting it to the base of the sacculus as in most Noctuinae. But the clasper may be misinterpreted in bryophilines: some of the Nearctic ‘ Cryphia ’ Hübner, 1818 have a small clasperlike structure situated near the dorsal margin of the valve, but the M7 interior valve muscle attaches broadly to the medial inner surface of the valve (we examined ‘ Cryphia’ olivacea (Smith, 1891)), not to a single point below the clasperlike structure, as with a true clasper.

Bryophilinae have historically been associated with the Acronictinae based on the presence of larval verrucae, but molecular and morphological analyses do not support a close relationship between the two ( Mitchell et al. 2006; Lafontaine and Fibiger 2006; Rota et al. 2016; Keegan et al. 2019). Fibiger and Lafontaine (2005) suggested placement near the Xyleninae (which we treated as the tribe Xylenini in Noctuinae), a concept that now largely encompasses the basally branching lineages of Noctuinae in our tree, and is consistent with our molecular results. The two most commonly recognized larval autapomorphies for the Noctuinae, a dorsally grooved spinneret and hairlike SD1 seta on A9, are not found in Bryophilinae . Instead the spinneret is tubular and the SD1 seta is not hairlike—but it is possible the absence of noctuine larval autapomorphies in bryophilines is a secondary loss of a condition prevalent but not universal in Noctuinae, perhaps owing to the unusual lichen-eating habit of bryophilines.