BOOK REVIEW

Journal of the Lepidupterists' Society .58(4), 2UU4, 2.30,2.31

MOMPHIDAE, , , AGONOXENIDAE, , CHRYSOPELEIIDAE , by J. C. Koster & S. Yu Sinev. In OF EUROPE 5, P. Huemer, O. Karsholt and L. Lyneborg (eds). Apollo Books, Stenstrup. 2003. 387 pp. ISBN 8788757668.

This volume of the reputable Microlepidoptera of This leads us to the issue of systematics and Europe series introduces 158 classified to classification followed in this volume. The authors belong to the gelechioid families , state the follOwing about ranking of the families: "Each Batrachedridae, Stathmopodidac, Agonoxenidae, of the six families of narrow-winged possesses a Cosmopterigidae and Chrysopeleiidae. In addition, it number of good autapomorphies ... , and this is a illustrates a few species whose systematic position is reason to keep their high ". This said, unclear. The book covers not only Europe but also the authors obviously chose to follow the nowadays North Africa and the Near East. It provides all that less fashionable 'evolutionary' classification. Without one needs to identify their specimens; thc illustrations going into the 'phylogenetic versus evolutionary are absolutely fantastic and cnable identification of classification' discussion, one would hope that in the most species readily. The species characterisations are selected philosophy of classification its internal logiC informative, and represent up-to-date knowledge of be honored. In phylogenetic systematics the position the species. The volume also provide a thorough of origin is what predominantly dictates the status of a introduction to thc convoluted history of the group, in evolutionary classification the amount of systematics of the families. However, the distribution divergence (anageneSiS) is the issue. To fulfil the table - probably the most annoying part of preparing a requirements of the evolutionary classification the book like this - might leave something to to be desired; groups should be very distinctive to warrant their 1 checked just the column of Finland and found one status. The reader hopes to see good absence and two unfounded prcsences of species argumentation to support the families, especially as although an updated Finnish checklist would have the classification is quite different from that proposed been available and easy to check. I have no idea how by Hodges (1998). But, this book does not quite accurate the table is otherwise. The biology of the succeed in this. The reader, espeCially one with some specics is outlined in much detail with a critical general knowledge on the , is left to treatment of doubtful old literature records. So I am wonder what the 'good apomorphies' possibly are. very happy to claim that the book serves its purpose, Here are some details. being an excellent identification tool and source of For Batrachedridae two apomorphies are listed: revised biological information. It also gives aesthetic wings extremely narrow with reduced venation, and pleasure by giving justice to the striking beauty of resting position very peculiar - neither of these are many of these little beasts. expanded upon to give the reader an impression of the The coin has two sides. The book deals with several details of these vague statements. The family status of putatively non-related gelechioid families. As the Batrachedridae is further supported by the following independence of the families is emphaSized to the arguments: "unspecialized larval life style, trophiC extreme by the authors (see below) I find the title of relations with generative organs of mostly trees, as well the book, 'Momphidae s. 1.,' on its cover very as scanty of species and absence of evident geographc confusing. Should not this kind of a landmark book centres of diverSity speak in favour of the viewpoint attempt to get rid of old misconcepts, instead of that the family represents a small advanced group of repeating them'2 Likewise, why is the collective term gelechioid moths with some very peculiar characters. "the narrow-winged moths" still used for this Thus, we treat Batrachedridae as a monophyletic and assemblage of taxa characterised by generally (but not well separated family, closely related to the invariably) narrow wings, but not for some others (e.g. ". These conclusions simply do not ) that are at least as narrow-winged? It follow from these arguments. This is next to nonsense would be best to get rid of such collective unfounded unless the conclusions are based on some other data terms instead of promoting their use to characterise a not mentioned. If they are based on the phylogenetic claimed unnatural grouping. I think it inconsiderate to analyses of Sinev (1992, 2002) as stated in the use them in this kind of standard book which is likely Introduction, it does not help much as these to become a classic. references only contain similar non-analytical VOLUME 58, NUMBE H 4 231 considerations without showing the original data, life style of feeding on reproductive organs of plants or instead of analyses of phylogeny. For the family being scavengers or predators of scale . I Momphidae no characteristics are pointed out to be wonder what makes these life history traits archaic - apomorphic. For the Stathmopodidae the scavenging or espeCially a predatory mode of life is characteristcs are: extremely narrow and long 'vvings rare and seemingly quite derived among the generally with very long fringes, ciliate antennae in males, phytophagous . Further, as it is grovvingly peculiarly armed hindlegs as well as genital duct obvious that reversing trends in characters must have morphology in female. For Agonoxidae the authors list repeatedly happened in the evolution of the as apomorphies the considerably enlarged anellus Lepidoptera, the meaning of 'archaic' and 'derived' lohes, the more or less weakened valvae and the becomes dubious. peculiar leg-shaped appendages of the . The The generic classification is even more obscure, and pupal character is at the same time also considered a it would have been good if the authors would have synapomorphy for families like Ethmiidae, stated that the current use of generic concepts is Hypertrophidae etc. The Cosmopterigidae is followed whether it was justified or not. All in all, the characterised by some male genital and unspecified systematic considerations are confusing and look like vYing venation characteristics, stated to be variably being conjectural rather than derived from hard developed in different subfamilies, though how analytical background, although it is claimed remains unmentioned. For the Chrysopeleiidae the otherwise. reduction of the tegumen, a fusion between the valvae To conclude, this is an excellent and highly bases and aedeagus and (unspecified) modification of recommended book for identification of the species, the segment VIII are listed, and the existence of but I would instruct the reader to turn a blind eye on further autapomorphies is implied though not the systematic treatment of the taxa. detailed. These apomorphy lists are in contrast with the R EFERENCES statement of all these families possessing a number of HODGES, R.W. , 1998. The Gelechioidea, in : Kristensen, N.P. (ed. ), Lepidoptera: Moths and , Walter de Gruyter GmbH. good apomorphies. In particular, if the Gelechioidea is & Co. Berlin & New York, pp. 131-158. regarded as a whole, one vvill find that many of these SI NEV, S. Yu . 1992. On th system ancl phylogeny of the Gelechioidea or similar characteristics are repeatedly found here s. I. (Lepidoptera). [Ill russian]. - Ent. Obozr. 71: 143-159. SI NEV, S. Yu. 2002. MOlphological principJes for the revision of tax­ and there. Their Significance can only be reflected onomic structure of the narrow-winged gelechioid moths (Lep­ against the entity, and this perspective is lacking in this idoptera, Gelechioidea). - Proc. Zoo\. Inst., St. Petersburg 296: volume. The authors also seem to "know" the 125-134. polarities of characters - which are archaic, which are L AU RI K AlLA, Finnish Museum of Natural History, derived. Sometimes these statements are in conflict Po.Box 17, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, vvith common sense. An example is the stathmopodid FINLAND Emaillauri.kaila@helsinkifi characterisation of their larvae having 'rather archaic'