A Review of the Genus Athrips (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) in the Palaearctic Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mitt. Mus. Nat.kd. Berl., Dtsch. entomol. Z. 52 (2005) 1, 3–72 / DOI 10.1002/mmnd.200310001 10. 06. 2005 A review of the genus Athrips (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) in the Palaearctic region Oleksiy Bidzilya* Kiev National Taras Shevchenko University, Zoological Museum, Vladimirskaya 60, 01033, Kiev-33, Ukraine Received November 2003, accepted July 2004 Published online May 2005 With 156 figures Key words: Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae, Athrips, new species, phylogeny, host-plants, distribution, Palaearctic region. Abstract The Palaearctic representatives of the genus Athrips Billberg, 1820, are reviewed; 34 species are recognized as valid, seven species and one subspecies are described as new, two new synonyms are established. Keys to the species are provided and all species and their male and female genitalia are described and illustrated. Biological data, as far as known, are given for each species and the host-plant relationships are briefly discussed. The genus Athrips is redefined and its position within Gelechii- dae is discussed and a provisional classification of the species based on a cladistic analysis is provided. # 2005 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Introduction In the course of my studies at least eight unde- scribed taxa of Athrips were discovered in collec- The gelechiid genus Athrips Billberg, 1820, com- tions, and new data on the host-plants and distri- prises 34 Palaearctic species, three of which also bution of several species were obtained. All occur in the Nearctic region. Six species are re- previously published (Bidzilya 2000, Falkovitsh corded for the Afrotropical region (South Afri- & Bidzilya 2003) and new data on the taxonomy, ca) (Janse 1950). biology and distribution of Palaearctic Athrips The genus has never been revised in the Pa- are here summarized and analyzed in detail. laearctic region. The most valuable contribution It is the purpose of this study to describe new to the systematics of Athrips was made by Satt- taxa, provide detailed descriptions of all species ler (1967, 1978), who clearly defined the taxo- and a key to the species, accompanied by illustra- nomic structure of the genus and proposed the tions of the adults and the genitalia of both sexes. It current list of synonyms. He recognized 16 spe- is also intended to provide an improved diagnosis cies in the Palaearctic region. of the genus Athrips based on the morphology of Subsequently a number of additional new spe- all Palaearctic species and taking related genera cies were described and some contributions to from other zoogeographic regions into considera- the systematics of Athrips made by various tion. authors (Povolna´ 1979, Piskunov 1980, Emelya- nov & Piskunov 1982, Lvovsky & Piskunov Material and methods 1989, 1993, Piskunov 1990a, b, Park 1991, Li & Zheng 1998). Recently ten European species The present study is based primarily on material in the col- were partially revised by Huemer & Karsholt lections of ZIN, ZMKU and ZMHU. Additional material was received from ZMUC, BMNH, TLMF, IZ ShNU, (1999). As a result the number of Palaearctic SZMN, KNU and others, as well as from private collections. species has increased to 26. The types of 20 nominal species have been examined. * Corresponding author: e-mail: [email protected] # 2005 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 4 Bidzilya, O., A review of the genus Athrips in the Palaearctic region Male genitalia were prepared using the unrolling techni- nitrariella-group que, as described by Pitkin (1986) and Huemer (1988). The nitrariella (Chre´tien, 1908) abdomen was macerated for five minutes in 10% KOH, then bidilatata Li & Zheng, 1998 rinsed and cleaned in water whilst the abdominal scales were mongolorum Piskunov, 1980 removed. The genitalia were then separated from the abdo- crassivalva Li & Zheng, 1998 syn. n. men and dissected in 70% ethanol. The abdomen was cut gussakovskii-group laterally and placed for three minutes in a solution of Chlor- gussakovskii (Gerasimov, 1930) azol Black. After dehydration in absolute alcohol, the genita- gussakovskii gobica I. Emelyanov & Piskunov, 1982 lia and abdomen were transferred into Euparal and covered syn. n. with a cover slip. autumnella Falkovitsh & Bidzilya, 2003 Female genitalia were prepared accordingly. carthaginella (D. Lucas, 1940) Images of the genitalia of most species have been taken thymifoliella-group with the aid of the Nikon Eclipse 600 microscope in combi- thymifoliella (Constant, 1893) nation with the photomicrographic equipment Nikon H-III. nigricostella-group Images of the moths have been taken with the same photo- nigricostella (Duponchel, 1842) graphic equipment but with Stereomicroscope Nikon SMS-U. tetrapunctella (Thunberg, 1794) In some instances images of both moths and their genitalia lathyri (Stainton, 1865) were taken with the Nikon Coolpix 4500 in combination with lathyrella (Doubleday, 1866) (emendation) binocular MBS-9. amoenella (Frey, 1882) Biological data were mainly extracted from bibliographic allgunnensis Svensson, 1993 n. inv. sources. For some species personal observations and label stepposa sp. n. data were also available. kerzhneri Piskunov, 1990 The distribution of species is established primarily from rutjani sp. n. material examined and is supplemented by literature data. falkovitshi-group Dubious literature records are discussed in the text. The falkovitshi Piskunov, 1990 “Material examined” is arranged in geographical order from fagoniae-group north-west to south-east; countries are referred to by their fagoniae (Walsingham, 1904) current names. Where these names differ significantly from cervinella Turati, 1934 those on the specimen labels the latter are also cited. rosinansella Lucas, 1942 gerasimovi-group gerasimovi Piskunov, 1982 Abbreviations of institutions septempunctata-group septempunctata Li & Zheng, 1998 tcharyna sp. n. BMNH British Museum (Natural History) London, U.K. sp. 1 HNHM Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest, peteri sp. n. Hungary tsaidamica-group KNU Center for Insect Systematics, Kangweon Na- tsaidamica I. Emelyanov & Piskunov, 1982 tional University, Chuncheon, Korea sp. 2 IZ ShNU Institute of Zoology, Shaanxi Normal University, pruinosella-group Xi’an, China polymaculella Park, 1991 MNHN Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, nigrogrisea (Kolmakova, 1958) France rancidella (Herrich-Scha¨ffer, 1854) RMNH Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, triatomea (Mu¨ hlig, 1864) Netherlands vepretella (Zeller, 1870) SZMN Siberian Zoological Museum of Institute of Sys- superfetella (Peyerimhoff, 1877) tematics and Ecology of Animals, Novosibirsk, cotoneastri (Busck, 1934) Russia cerasivorella (Kuznetzov, 1960) TLMF Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck, rancidella tadzhika ssp. n. Austria pruinosella (Lienig & Zeller, 1846) ZIN Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of adumbratella (Snellen, 1884) Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia spiraeae (Staudinger, 1871) ZMHU Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universita¨t, kostjuki sp. n. Berlin, Germany sibirica sp. n. ZMKU Zoological Museum, Kiev National Taras Shev- medjella (Chre´tien, 1900) chenko University, Kiev, Ukraine patockai (Povolny´, 1979) ZMUC Zoologisk Museum, University of Copenhagen, sp. n. (Junnilainen, in litt.) Copenhagen, Denmark eugenii sp. n. ZSM Zoologische Staatssammlung, Munich, Germany sp. 3. mouffetella (Linnaeus, 1758) pedisequella ([Denis & Schiffermu¨ ler], 1775) punctifera (Haworth, 1828) Check-list of Palaearctic Athrips Taxa incertae sedis asarinella (Chre´tien, 1930) Athrips Billberg, 1820 Rhynchopacha Staudinger, 1871 Epithectis Meyrick, 1895 Leobatus Walsingham, 1904 Ziminiola Gerasimov, 1930 The systematic position of Athrips Cremona Busck, 1934 tigrina-group tigrina (Christoph, 1877) Up to date the position of many genera within agnathos Li & Zheng, 1998 Gelechiidae remains unclear due to the lack of a # 2005 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim Mitt. Mus. Nat.kd. Berl., Dtsch. entomol. Z. 52 (2005) 1 / http://museum-dez.wiley-vch.de 5 cladistic analysis of the whole family. The divi- and female (ductus bursae) genitalia, being more sion of Gelechiidae into subfamilies and tribes is closely related to Gelechiini (see below). Pisku- still controversial. That is partly a result of diffi- nov’s views (1982) on the similarity of the genus culties in correctly homologizing the male genital to Megacraspedus seem dubious too, as the latter structures in different gelechiid genera. The si- genus is now considered to be a member of the tuation is complicated by the absence of com- Anomologini, with which it shares such characters parative morphological data for many tropical as a pecten on the antennal scape. genera. The consideration of Athrips as a member of Hodges (1998) divided the family into four the subfamily Gelechiinae seems better subfamilies, using the structure of the sternal grounded. Athrips does not share any synapo- support system of the abdomen, but this view is morphies with Dichomeridinae as defined by not generally accepted. According to Ponoma- Hodges and Ponomarenko. The differences from renko (1994, 1997), the musculature of the male Pexicopiinae are also evident. By contrast, genitalia, as well as other traditional morphologi- Athrips has similarities in the musculature of the cal characters, should be taken into considera- male genitalia to Gelechiinae (Ponomarenko, tion for the infrafamiliar classification of the Ge- pers. comm.). lechiidae. She has shown that at least Within that subfamily the genus shares with Dichomeridinae has other