Hasora mavis Evans, 1934

Xue, Guoxi, Ikari, Etsuo, Inayoshi, Yutaka & Li, Meng, 2019, Hasora mavis Evans, 1934 syn. n. is confirmed to be the female of H. leucospila leucospila (Mabille, 1891) (Hesperiidae, Coeliadinae) by DNA barcoding, Zootaxa 4695 (4), pp. 391-393 : 391-392

Hasora mavis Evans, 1934 syn. n. ( Fig. 1 )

Hasora borneensis mavis Evans, 1934: 34 . Type locality: Perak, Malaysia.

Hasora khoda mavis: Evans, 1949: 70 (key).

Hasora borneensis mavis: Eliot, 1967: 146 (discussion).

Hasora mavis: Maruyama, 1991: 6 , 7 (note), pl. 6, H20 (for female adult); Eliot, 1992: 334, 336, pl. 62, fig. 6 (for the holotype); Kitamura, 2002: 46, figs. 2–3, 2–4 (for adults of both sexes); de Jong & Treadaway, 2007: 9 (key, note), 10 (note); de Jong & Treadaway, 2008: pl. 3, figs. 14,15, pl. 4, figs. 1, 2 (for adults of both sexes); Chiba, 2009: 32, 81, fig. 93 (for female genitalia), pl. 14, fig. 10 (for female adult); Kimura, 2011: 27 (note); Sugimoto, 2019: 52 (note), fig. 1 (for female adult).

= Hasora leucospila leucospila (Mabille, 1891) ( Fig. 2 )

Specimens examined. 9♂♂2♂♂, 12–16.I.2019, Suoi Da Ban , Phu Quoc, Kieng Giang, Vietnam, 50 m, leg. Etsuo Ikari , deposited in the private collection of Etsuo Ikari.

Bionomics. The butterflies were only seen within 200 m from the entrance of a trail along a stream at Suoi Da Ban ( Fig. 3 ). The specimens were captured when they flew out of the bush along the trail and rested on the leaf at the height of 1 m to 2 m. The females were captured at 10 am and noon.

Remarks. Based upon one female specimen from Perak, Evans (1934: 34) described Hasora borneensis mavis as a separate subspecies. Later, he transferred it to H. khoda without giving any reason ( Evans 1949: 70). Eliot (1967: 146), however, believed that mavis was a subspecies of H. borneensis rather than H. khoda because it matched well with the male of H. borneensis luza Evans, 1949 , although he noticed that it bore less hyaline spots on the forewing than the female of typical borneensis .

Maruyama (1991: 6) pointed out that mavis was neither borneensis nor khoda , and considered it a possible female of a known species. Without any confidence to associate it with a male, he treated it as a distinct species, viz. Hasora mavis . De Jong & Treadaway (1993: 13) considered this action needing further study since the lack of male materials. Later, Kitamura (2002: 56) reported the male of mavis from Leyte, and stated that mavis and borneensis should be different spe- cies due to distinguishable wing patterns and sympatric distribution. This point was followed by de Jong & Treadaway (2007: 9; 2008: 2, pl. 3) who also provided photos of a male mavis . Up to now, mavis has been found in Thailand (Koh Samui), West Malaysia, East Malaysia (Kinabalu), Philippines and Taraud Island. However, judging from the female gen- italia, wing shape, markings and the distribution, Chiba (2009: 32) denied the conspecific status of mavis and borneensis and suspected that mavis might be the female of leucospila , which was widely distributed in Myanmar, Thailand, West Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Philippines, Sulawesi and Amboina. This hypothesis was strongly supported by Lee (2012) with molecular evidence, but he did not draw the final conclusion because only one individual of each taxon from the Philippines was included. Recently, Sugimoto (2019: 52) reported both mavis and leucospila from Phu Quoc, southern Vietnam, and this further aroused the suspicion on the relationship of these two taxa.

In January 2019, one of the co-authors of the present paper, Etsuo Ikari, succeeded in obtaining six Hasora leucospila and two H. mavis in Phu Quoc , of which, two H. leucospila and one H. mavis were used for DNA barcoding ( Table 1 ) following the method described by Hebert et al. (2004). The result shows the mean Kimura-2-Parameter genetic distance of the 649 bp COI gene sequences of the specimens is only 0.3% ( Table 2 ), indicating they belong to the same species. This is in agreement with the study of Lee (2012).

Prior to this study, only one specimen from Sulawesi has been known as the female of Hasora leucospila ( Evans 1949: 71 ), but judging from the illustration provided by Maruyama (1991: pl. 6, H21), its wing pattern is conspicuously different from that of H. mavis syn. n. ( Fig. 1 ). Therefore, the identity of this specimen needs further study. The other remaining problem is about the male specimens of mavis presented by Kitamura (2002: fig. 2–4) and de Jong & Treadaway (2008: pl. 3, figs. 14, 15) which are definitely not leucospila . According to Kitamura (2002: 46), the genitalia of his male mavis are very similar to and hardly distinguishable from those of borneensis . Therefore, we suppose those specimens should belong to borneensis , and the narrow straw-colored area on the upperside wing bases considered by Kitamura (2002: 56) as a diagnostic character should be individual variation.

Figures

FIGURE 3. Habitat of Hasora leucospila leucospila in Phu Quoc, southern Vietnam. Photographed by Etsuo Ikari.

FIGURES 1–2. Adults from Phu Quoc, southern Vietnam. 1. Hasora mavis syn. n., female. 2. Hasora leucospila leucospila, male. a. dorsal side; b. ventral side. Scale bar = 1 cm.

Tables

TABLE 1. Specimens used for sequencing.

Taxa	Locality	Date	Sex	Specimen ID	GenBank accession number
Hasora mavis	Suoi Da Ban, Phu Quoc ,	14.I.2019	female	A64	MN 170731
Hasora leucospila	Kieng Giang , Vietnam	13.I.2019	male	A65	MN 170732
		14.I.2019	male	A66	MN 170733

TABLE 2. Uncorrected pairwise genetic distances (Kimura-2-parameter) between individuals of Hasora species. Specimen ID A64 A65 A66 A64 0 A65 0.003 0 A66 0.003 0.003 0

Specimen ID	A64	A65	A66
A64	0
A65	0.003	0
A66	0.003	0.003	0