1969 Journal ot the Lepidopterists' Society 203

BOOK REVIEW

A REVISION OF THE OF THE SUBFAMILY PRODOXINAE (: INCUR­ VARIIDAE), by Donald R. Davis. U. S. National Museum, Bulletin 255, 170 pp., Washington, D. C., 1967. Paper cover, $1.00.

Possibly no group of so-called Microlepidoptera has attracted greater attention among biologists than the moths. Therefore, a broad audience will be interested to learn that despite the title indicating a traditional taxonomic treatment, Davis has compiled a much more comprehensive treatise. Not only is an up-to-date classification presented, but the history of the yucca-yucca story is revi ewed, phylogenetic relationships among the prodoxines and their relatives are proposed, and original biological observations are reported for several of the species. Perhaps the single most interesting new fact is the description of Parategeticula pollinifera. a moth which transports pollen of Y Hcca schotti but deposits its eggs into sterile tissue of the in­ florescence rather than into the ovules. The taxonomic treatment encompasses 17 species in five genera. In addition to Parategeticula, new genera are proposed for the Agave feeders (Agavanema) and for a new species (Mesepiola) which may be an associate of Nolina. Descriptions are accompanied by excellent drawings of morphological features of the adults, such as mouthparts and genitalia. Good photographs, executed by Mr. Jack Scott, illustrate adults of each species and female abdominal structures, including the ovipositor "saws." This is an innovation to Lepidoptera which is very effective and may prove valuable in other moth groups. The early stages are not described in detail. It is unfortunate that our study of biological relationships of the prodoxids associ­ ated with Yucca whipp lei (Powell and Mackie, 1966, U. Calif. Pub!. Ent., 42) could not have been included in Davis' otherwise comprehensive work. Yucca whipplei harbors the most complex community of prodoxine moths, so far as known, and on its basis many generalizations for the genera or the subfamily, based primarily on Riley's work, need to be modified; but they will be perpetuated by the present revision. In discussion of relationships of the prodoxines, Davis presents a plausible theory of evolutionary development, based on both morphological and biological features, which implicates the subfamily as a New World derivative of an Incurvariid proto­ type. In this context, he theorizes on the evolution of primitive Lepidoptera. Davis supposes that early Lepidoptera were external feeders and that this habit has con­ tinued into the higher moths and butterflies, and that such groups as the hepalioids, eriocranioids, and incurvarioids, all internal feeders, represent specialized offshoots which were not involved in a direct line to the higher Lepidoptera. This may well have been the case, but Davis' present argument is not valid because it treats the Micropterygidae as equivalent to generalized Lepidoptera, ignoring Hinton's rather convincing arguments for a more primitive position for the Micropterygidae. In order to follow Davis' line of reasoning, it would be necessary to refute or justify Hinton's conclusions about Zeugloptera-Trichoptera-Lepidoptera relationships. That the most primitive known eriocraniid, Agathiphaga Dumbleton, 1952, is a borer in seeds of a Gymnosperm casts further doubt on a theoretical line of development directly through external feeding types. Specialists may question some of the taxonomic decisions. The name synthetica Riley, 1892, after some 70 years in synonymy, has been exhumed to accommodate the Joshua tree moth, in favor of paradoxa Riley, 1889, on the grounds tbat the latter is a nomen nudum. However, Riley's original proposal of paradoxa included mention of the host and that paradoxa is its pollinator. That this comprises a diagnosis "of the work of an " [I.C.Z.N., 24 b], evidently has been the interpretation of 20th century Lepidopterists. It would appear that the plenary powers of the Commission need be invoked in order to preserve synthetica and suppress paradoxa. Lectotypes arc deSignated which revise type localities or seem to b e Neotypes in several instances: 204 POWELL: Book review Vol. 23, no. 3

1) for yuccasella; a lectotype is designated, "Pronuba yuccasella Riley, 0, June, 'C. Mo.'" However, the lectotype specimen at the U. S. National Museum bears the data "May 31/73," and "~ moth," and this would have to he a Neotype, since the name is credited to Riley as of the Anonymous, 1872, report in Nature, in order for it to have priority over alba Zeller, 1873. 2) for synthetica, "Mojave, Kern Co., Calif." (A type locality was not specified by Riley, but his discussion suggests Antelope Valley, Los Angeles County. The lecto­ type specimen bears the additional data "2.-4-91," presumably in reference to a col­ lection date subsequent to the 1887 and 1888 collections made by Riley and Koebele, which are the only ones mentioned in the original description of synthetica.) 3) for aterrima, "Arrowhead, Calif." (This is the data on the specimen; Davis then quotes Trelease for the type locality, "From the foothills immediately north of San Bernardino.") Arrowhead refers to Arrowhead Springs, at 2,000 feet, not the more well known Lake Arrowhead at 5,000 feet. 4) for pulverulentus, "San Diego Co." (Evidently a Neotype, since the type locality was given as Santiago, Calif. The only Santiago within the distribution of pulverulen... tus is the Canyon and Peak in Orange Connty. Apparent syntypical specimens with the data "Santiago, May 20" are cited in Davis' material examined, and one is cited "lectotype"; but the lectotype specimen bears the data "San Diego Co., Calif. 20/586," as given in the formal "lectotype" designation.) A few errors of minor nature bear notice here. The map for T. synthetica lacks a spot for Walker Pass, Kern County, the northern record given in the data. The map for T. maculata has heen rendered somewhat confusing by inclusion of a dot in north­ ern California representing "Plumas Co." specimens, which are certainly mislabeled, and by a symbol representing the subspecies extranea near Beverly Hills, evidently for a cotype labeled "Los Angeles," but there is no evidence that the black extranea phenotype occurs anywhere west of San Bernardino now. Specimen labels from my material have been misread as "Samalayucca, 12 miles S. of Chihuahua," instead of 12 miles south of Samalayuca, in the northern part of the State of Chihuahua, resulting in dots on the T. yuccasella and P. quinql1epunctel­ Ius maps, some 200 miles south of the Samalayuca dunes, and this is the southern record for the latter species. However, both are undoubtedly more widespread in western Mexico than Davis' data shows. No mention is made of the unique caudal spurs on the larva of Prodoxus cinerel1s, although these were described by Riley. A photograph given by Davis (fig. 22) is not a clear one, but the larva appears to lack the hooks, indicating that the species shown is actually P. aenescens. Prodoxl1s marginatus and P. pulverulentus, are treated as species, and are referred to as "these two biological entities." However, in our work we found no behavioral difference between these two aJlopatric counterparts. The distribution of marginatus given by Davis includes a record for Fallbrook, in northern San Diego County, based on three males which were taken along with speci­ mens which he cites under pulverulentus. This certainly is too weak a basis for indi­ cating sympatry, particularly since females show a more appreciable difference. We reared large numbers of pod inhabiting Prodoxl1s from sites near Fallbrook and found populations there to represent pl1lverulentus. Biologists and ecologists will find this book to be an important reference to the classic examplc of -plant symbiotic relationships. Lepidopterists will find it a well done and easily used addition to the increasingly more complete mosaic repre­ senting our knowledge of the North American Microlepidoptera fauna.-JERRY A. POWELL, University of California, Berkeley.