Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 41(4), pp. 343-347, 1995

SYSTEMATIC POSITION AND GENERIC STATUS OF LYCAENA COGIN A SCHAUS, 1902: AN ENDEMIC NEOTROPICAL LYCAENOPSINA (, )

Zs. B álint1 and K. Johnson2

1Department of Zoology, Hungarian Natural History Museum H-1088 Budapest, Baross utca 13, Hungary 2 Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, USA

Elkalyce, gen. n., is proposed for the polyommatine lycaenid originally described as

Lycaena cogina S chv us . This species, endemic to SE Brazil, has long been considered a member of the genera Everes or Leptotes, from which, however, it is quite distinct. The new genus belongs to the Lycaenopsina infratribe of the Lycaenopsis Section erected by E liot . The taxonomic history of Lycaena cogina is discussed.

Key words: Brazil, Celastrina, Lycaenposina, Neotropics,

INTRODUCTION

Our review of higher taxonomic categories in the Neotropical Polyommati­ ni has required study of the identity and status of several unusual South American species which show very restricted distributions (BÁLINT and JOHNSON 1995). Previously, the senior author clarified the identity of Lycaena griqua (SCHAUS, 1902: 407), replacing the unavailable homonym griqua with parana BÁLINT and placing this species in Pseudolucia NABOKOV, 1945 (BÁLINT 1993: 17). On the same page as the description of L. griqua , SCHAUS also described Lycaena cogi­ na, both species reported only from Castro, Paraná, Brazil. L. cogina was rep­ resented only by its holotype, a male numbered as Type #5920 in the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), Washington D. C. (COMSTOCK and HUNT­ INGTON 1958-1964 119591: 190; BRIDGES 1994: VIII.113; G. LAMAS, pers. comm.). Hitherto the systematic position of L. cogina has not been clarified (see EBERT 1969, BROWN 1993 and Discussion) and, as a result, its unique systematic position in the Lycaenopsis Section has gone unrecognized (ELIOT and KAWA- ZOÉ 1983). Although the significance of L. cogina in the South American fauna has been mentioned as recently as 1993, no one appears to have taken the fun­ damental step to study its morphology with regard to overall placement in the Polyommatini.

Actazool. hung. 41, 1995 Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest 344 ZS. BÁLINT & К. JOHNSON

Our study of Lycaena cogina, from recently located additional material listed below, indicates it represents a unique Neotropical endemic infratribe in the Lycaenopsis Section (sensu ELIOT 1973, FIEDLER 1991, BÁLINT and JOHNSON herein) and, as such, is of obvious generic worth, both taxonomically and biogeographically. In the following description we apply the format and terminology of ELIOT and KAWAZOÉ (1983).

Elkalyce BÁLINT and JOHNSON, gen. n. (Figs 1-5)

Type species: Lycaena cogina SCHAUS, 1902

Diagnosis. Eyes large, glabrous. Antennae slightly shorter than the forewing cell; club with patch of white scales. Second segment of the palpi long and naked. Forewing cell extending ap­ proximately to midwing; vein Sc ending before cell apex, veins R1 and Sc approximate but dis­ tinct. Male genitalia with sociuncus cupola-shaped in dorsal and lateral view, gnathos with articulating brachia, vinculum very broad with sclerotized edges, valva with large costal process and an additional membranous apical process with long setae; juxta extreamily large and V-shaped connected strongly to the valva apical edge, phallus straight in dorsal view but curved in lateral view with biapical (but bulbous) caecum and long, deeply divided Chapman’s process. Male dorsal forewings with broad black borders and with veins and basal area are strongly suffused by dark scales extending along the costa to the wing base. Males without androconial marks. Hindwing similar to forewing but with marginal arrowhead-like markings and antemarginal spots in each cell.

Pattern of hindwing venter typical polyommatine (cf. E liot and K v wv zoé 1983, figs 434-485). Female unknown. Material examined. 2 males, labelled as “Brasilia, Sao Paulo, Campos de Jordao, 1600 m, 26.1.1966., leg. H. Ebert; Staatssammlung, München”; gen. prep. B álint , No. 543. Distribution and diversity. Confined to the Neotropical Realm (known only from Paraná, Brazil at present) and monotypic at present. Etymology. An arbitrary combination of syllables, gender feminine, comprises three ele­ ments: “El” = E liot , “K a” = KAWAZOÉ and “Lyce” = Lycaenopsis.

1 2

Figs 1-2. Elkalyce cogina (Schaus), male, Brasilia, Sâo Paolo, Campos de Jordao, 1600 m, 26.1.66 (ZSBS) 1 = dorsal, 2 = ventral view

Acta zoo!. hung. 41, 1995 SYSTEMATIC POSITION AND GENERIC STATUS OF LYCAENA COG1NA 345

DISCUSSION

Most significant to the morphology of L. cogina is its membership in the Lycaenopsis Section, and of taxa therein, its comprising a unique Neotropical member. L. cogina shares the following characters with the Lycaenopsis Section: (1) Hindwing tailess; male genitalia with uncus lobes produced; vinculum with a pronounced subtriangular extension directed cephalad; caecum more or less de­ veloped, suprazonal portion short.

Figs 3 -5. M ale genital structures of Elkalyce cogina (Schv us ). 3 = uncus, gnathos, tegumen and vinculum, 4 = valva and juxta, 5 = aedeagus in lateral and ventral aspect

Actazool, hung. 41. 1995 346 ZS. BÁLINT & К. JOHNSON

The morphology of Elkalyce possess some unique features amongst Ly- caenopsis polyommatine lycaenids: (1) the juxta is remarkable well developed with large anal lobes, (2) the valva possess an anal membranous lobe and (3) the penis has a short but conspicuous, biapical suprazonal element (=Chapman’s pro­ cess). These characteristics suggest that the most probable sister group of Elka­ lyce is not Celastrina, but Oreolyce (cf. ELIOT and KAWAZOÉ 1983, figs of Ore- olyce and Celastrina), a view which invites corroboration from the as-yet-un- known structures of the female. L. cogina was not figured by DRAUDT (1921: 817) and only a cu rsory repe­ tition of the original description was given. The species was listed as Lycaena (Rusticus) cogina - a strange combination (cf. type species of Rusticus HÜBNER, 11806]: Papilio argus LINNAEUS, 1758). C omstock and HUNTINGTON (1958-1964 f 1959] : 190) simply repeated the binomen of the type description while HAYWARD (1973: 165), perhaps relying on his visits to BMNH, erroneously placed cogina in Leptotes SCUDDER. HAY­ WARD (1973) also recorded specimens from Misiones Province, Argentina. These were not located by the junior author at Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, in 1991 but perhaps are worth looking for in uncurated HAYWARD material still held at the BMNH. EBERT (1969), who studied the of eastern Brazil from an ecological aspect, recorded the taxon as a very rare species, flying in February, April and May. He did not repeat the original combination but indi­ cated that the taxon was not convincingly classified (“[Gen. ign.] cogina ”, EBERT 1969: 41). BROWN (1993: 52, table 2) published a cumulative list of Neotropical polyommatines. He cited EBERT but also called attention to the distinctness of cogina, noting that it suggested separate generic status among the “Everes sec­ tion” (BROWN 1993, Table 2, note 3). However, he figured it as ’Everes ’ cogina (BROWN 1993 op. cit., fig. 1/20). In 1993 the senior author located two male specimens of “Lycaena cogina” in the butterfly collection of the “Zoologische Staatssammlung des Bayerischen Staates”, Munich, Germany (ZSBS). The specimens were curated by the late Dr. WALTER F orster , a well known lycaenidologist, as “Lycaenopsis cogina”, a placement uncannily “close” in light of its morphology. In 1994 the senior author corresponded with the late CHARLES A. BRIDGES who was preparing his recently revised catalogue (BRIDGES 1994). Among many questions regarding central Asian and high Andean polyommatines, Mr. BRID­ GES also asked the senior author about the placement of Lycaena cogina. With dissected specimens of L. cogina in hand, the senior author was able to inform BRIDGES that cogina was a lycaenopsine and, pending publication concerning its unique generic worth, best placed tentatively either in “Lycaenopsis” or the Neo­ tropical lycaenopsine genus “Celastrina ”. BRIDGES’ response (in litt, to BÁLINT, 23 November, 1994 and reflected subsequently in his publication 1994: VIII 113,

Acta zool. hung. 41, 1995 SYSTEMATIC POSITION AND GENERIC STATUS OF LYCAENA COGINA 347

IX. 63) was “you say, that Lycaena cogina SCHAUS, 1902 is a Lycaenopsis. But that genus is Indoaustralian, while cogina is Neotropical. How can that be?”. With this apparently in mind, BRIDGES followed HAYWARD, placing cogina (again incorrectly) in Leptotes. As with B rown ’s placement of cogina with Everes, this reflects a problem first pointed out by JOHNSON and QUINTER ( 1982[ 1983]) - many lepidopterists tend to look only to genera from their im­ mediate biogeographic realm or hemisphere when trying to classify poorly known entities.

REFERENCES

BÁLINT, Zs. (1993) A Catalogue of Polyommatine Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera) of the Xeromontane Oreal Biome in the Neotropics As Represented in European Collections. Rep. Mus. Nat. Hist. Univ. Wis. (Stevens Point) 29: 1-42. B álint , Zs. and J ohnson , K. (1995) Neotropical Polyommatine diversity and affinities. I. Rela­ tionships of the higher taxa (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Acta tool. hung. 41(3): 211-235. BRIDGES, C. A. (1994) Catalogue of the Family-Group, Genus-Group and Species-Group Names of the Riodinidae & Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera) of the World. Published by author, Urbana, Il­ linois, 1128 pp. B ro w n , K. S. (1993) Neotropical Lycaenidae: an overview, hi N ew , T. E. (ed.) Conservation Biol­ ogy of Lycaenidae (Butterflies). Occasional Paper of the 1UCN Species Survival Com­ mission 8: 45-61. C omstock , W. P. and H untington , E. I. (1958-1964) An annotated list of the Lycaenidae (Lepi­ doptera) of the Western Hemisphere. J. New York ent. Soc. 66: 103-118; 67: 59-95, 163- 212; 70: 39-46, 100-118, 177-179; 71: 45-57; 72: 62-64, 120-130, 173-192.

D rv udt , M. (1921). “ 15. Gattung Itylos, 16. Gattung Scolitantides” In S eit z , A. (ed.): Macrolepi- doptera of the World, Vol 5. Stuttgart, Alfred Kernen Verlag, pp. 821-823. E bert , H. (1969) On the frequency of butterflies in Eastern Brazil, with a list of the butterfly fauna of Pocos de Caldas, Minas Gerais../. Lep. Soc. 23(Suppl. 3), 48 pp. E liot , J. N. (1973) The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative arrange­ ment. Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist. (Ent.) 28: 371-505.

E liot , J. N. and K v wv zo É, A. (1983) The Blue Butterflies of the Lycaenopsis Group. London, BMNH, 309 pp. F iedler , K. (1991) Systematic, evolutionary, and ecological implications of myrmecophily within the Lycaenidae (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Bonner Zoologische Monographien 31, 210 pp.

H v ywv rd , K. J. (1973) Catalogo de los Ropaloceros Argentinos. Opera Lillioana 23: 1-318. J ohnson , K. and Q uinter , E. ( 1982[ 1983]) Commentary on Miller and Brown vs. Ehrlich and Murphy et al.: Pluralism in systematics and the worldwide nature of kinship groups. J. Res. Lep. 24: 255-269.

S chv us , W. (1902) Descriptions of new American butterflies. Proc. U. S. nain. Mus. 24: 383—460.

Received 19th May 1995, revised version accepted 15th August 1995

Acta zool. hung. 41, 1995