Vanessa vetula

Jong, Rienk De, 2017, Fossil butterflies, calibration points and the molecular clock (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea), Zootaxa 4270 (1), pp. 1-63 : 41

vetula . Vanessa vetula von Heyden, 1859

Incertae sedis.

Germany, Rheinland-Pfalz, Siebengebirge, Rott; Chattian, late Oligocene.

Depository: BMNH (holotype, but not found).

Published figures: von Heyden (1859: Pl. 1 Fig. 10); Scudder (1875: Pl. III Figs 12 , 16, as Thanatites juvenalis ).

The original description and figure of this specimen was reproduced by Scudder (1875), who corrected previous mistakes and compared the fossil to the hesperiid Thanaos juvenalis (Fabricius) (Pyrginae; now in Erynnis ). Because of supposed similarities, Scudder (1875) erected the genus Thanatites for the fossil. There is, however, very little to support this opinion. As remarked by Scudder (1875: 65), the fossil "…is excessively obscure at the present time, and no fossil object I have ever studied has proved so difficult to decipher as this." The venation is too obscure to be helpful. The only character that could point to Hesperiidae is the presence of a costal fold, an apomorphy of part of the Hesperiidae . However, it is not mentioned in the original description, and only casually so by Scudder. Moreover, it is not shown in the figure. Scudder's assumption that the nearest living allies occur in tropical America is pure speculation, especially since it is not even certain that the fossil belongs to the Hesperiidae . There are no indications either, that the fossil belongs to the Nymphalidae , as supposed by von Heyden (1859). Kirby (1871) placed it in the recent genus Araschnia , apparently following von Heyden who compared it to Vanessa levana Linnaeus , now in Araschnia ). Unless the specimen can be found and studied in greater detail, it is inconsequential for understanding either the timing or relationships of butterflies. Kozlov (1988) listed the fossil as “ Thanaites vetulinus (Heyden)”.

Figures

FIGURES 11 – 13. Ƒanessa pluto Heer, 1849. Figures copied from (1875), Plate II, figures 1, 17 and 7, respectively. (A), copied by Scudder from original description by Heer; (B) and (C), figures sent to Scudder by Mr. Brunner de Wattenwyl, made after the same object. Note differences in wing shape and other details. Figs 14 – 16. Thaites ruminiana Scudder, 1875. Figures copied from Scudder (1875), Plate III, figures 9, 1 and 3, respectively. (A), underside of fossil; (B), reconstruction of venation; (C), reconstruction of markings. In (A) two separate subcostal veins have been drawn in the forewing, an impossible configuration in Lepidoptera, and apparently a mistake, corrected in (B) and (C). Fig. 17. Cyllo sepulta Boisduval, 1841, wing venation after Scudder (1875). Fig. 18. Butterfly fossil recorded by Wangrin (1939), but shown to be a fraud by Ansorge (2015). Photo kindly provided by J. Ansorge, Horst, Germany (see text for explanation).