of subfamilies remains unstable. Hodges (1986) divided Gelechiidae into the three sub­ families Gelechiinae, Dichomeridinae and Pexicopiinae, differing by characters of the adult abdominal sternum II. Later he added the south-east Asian Physoptilinae as the sister-group of the aforementioned subfamilies (Hodges, 1998). Kuznetzov & Stekol­ nikov (1984) initially distinguished only two subfamilies whereas in a later publication they recognized six (Kuznetzov & Stekolnikov, 2001). Further concepts have been in­ troduced, e. g. by Leraut (1993) and Sinev (1992, 1993). Recently Ponomarenko (2005, 2006, 2009) presented a classification based on a comparative morphological analysis particularly of the male genitalia and its musculature system. She distinguished five subfamilies: Physoptilinae, Anomologinae, Gelechiinae, Anacampsinae and Di­ chomeridinae. However, none of these concepts has received thorough acceptance from the scientific community so far. Hodges (1998) in the most widely accepted review characterized the Gelechiinae by abdominal sternum II with a pair of venulae and a pair of apodemes and the antenna usually without pecten (present as a single slender scale in Bryotropha and in some species of Metzneria, Monochroa and Aristotelia and a full pecten in the Apatetris-group}. However, Ponomarenko (2006, 2009) showed that several genera associated with the Gelechiinae by Hodges (op. cit.) in fact agree in the second sternite with most genera of Dichomeridinae. She concluded that the peculiar­ ities of adult abdominal sternum are diverse within the family and thus unsuitable for establishing taxa at the subfamily rank. Despite these shortcomings the monophyly of Gelechiinae is still (according to Ponomarenko, 2006) based on two autapomorphies: valva with mediobasal process and male genital segment with glands, which are however secondarily reduced in several groups. The subdivision of Gelechiinae into tribes is a further matter of ongoing discussion. Karsholt & Riedl (1996) distinguished seven tribes in Europe. According to these au­ thors Gelechiinae include the tribes Apatetrini, Anomologini, Utini (formerly Teleiodini), Gelechiini, Gnorimoschemini, Anacampsini, and Chelariini. This subdivision was also followed by Lee et al. (2009) for the North America fauna. Other authors such as Po­ volny (2002b) add Metzneriini as an eighth tribe. On the contrary Ponomarenko (2006) only separated three gelechiinae tribes, Gnorimoschemini, Gelechiini and Utini, based on various apomorphic character states of the genitalia and their muscles, whereas all other tribes were moved to different subfamilies. The systematic position of several suprageneric taxa still remains disputed (Bidzilya & Karsholt, 2008) and needs further analysis. Morphology and systematics of Gnorimoschemini Gnorimoschemini was introduced by Povolny (1964) who basically defined the tribe by genitalia characters. Despite his repeated, detailed and extensive descriptions of adults and preimaginal stages, he never supported the Gnorimoschemini by synapomorphies - maybe with the exception of the reduction of muscle m 7 in the male genitalia (Po­ volny, 2002a, referring to Kuznetzov & Stekolnikov, 2001). Identification of the group is merely based on a combinations of characters (Povolny, 2002b). Indeed Gnorimos­ chemini is weakly separated from Gelechiini with which it shares the conspicuous dila­ tion of the lateral parts of the vinculum as synapomorphy but it is characterized as morphologically homogenous and more specialized than Gelechiini. Later the mono­ phyly of Gnorimoschemini has been supported based on a hook-like signum and a lateral zone of microtrichia near the ostial area (Huemer & Karsholt, 1999; Ponoma­ renko, 2006). 13 Diagnosis (following the terminology introduced by Povolny (various papers), Huemer (1988), Jansen (1999) and Kristensen (2003)). Moth (Text-figs. 1-3) with a high degree of overall similarity; small to medium-sized, wingspan ranging from 6 to 24 mm; labial palpus recurved, second segment usually with brush of short scales on outer surface; forewing usually with one plical and two discal spots. Male genitalia (Text-figs. 4-6) with uncus usually broadly hood-like; gnathos with hook-shaped to spatulate mesal sclerite, or reduced, culcitula usually well-developed; teguminal pedunculi large; valva (cucullus sensu Ponomarenko) simple, mostly digitate to rod-shaped; sacculus (parabasal process sensu Povolny) short to long, frequently with pointed apex; vinculum frequently sup­ porting ridge from anterior margin to medial part, posterior margin with one to two pairs of small projections to distinct vincular process (sacculus process sensu Povolny); saccus short to long, frequently rod-like to tongue-shaped; phallus (aedeagus sensu auc­ torum) short to long, rarely with small spines, sub-apical hooklet usually present, ca­ ecum inflated. Female genitalia (Text-figs. 7-10) with sclerotized subgenital plates, partially covered with microtrichia, foamy sculpture or smooth, rarely with process-like sclerites; ventromedial part of sternite VIII with or without paired depressions, areas of foamy sculpture and/or microtrichia present or reduced; subostial sclerites present or absent; antrum funnel-shaped to tubular or largely reduced, colliculum shortly ring­ shaped to reduced; posterior part of ductus bursae with or without lateral sclerites; cor­ pus bursae normally well defined; signum usually with basal plate and a strong distal signum-hook, rarely reduced. Povolny (1991) furthermore published an extensive syn­ thesis on preimaginal characters which is not repeated here because it lacks differential diagnoses and a phylogenetic analysis. costal block subcostal streak apical streak costal spot cilia ""' line \ cilia tornal spot tegula fold thorax Text-fig. 1. Wing markings of Gnorimoschemini. 14 .