Craspedolepta bifida (Caldwell, 1936), stat. rev.

(Fig. 44, 46, 56, 58, 62, 66–68)

Aphalara bifida Caldwell 1936: 222; Journet 1973: 454; Journet and Vickery 1979: 62.

Craspedolepta bifida (Caldwell); Russell 1973: 157.

Cerna bifida (Caldwell); Klimaszewski 1979: 52.

Materials examined. Holotype ♀ and 1 ♀ paratype: USA: Florida: Miami-Dade County: Miami, 24.i.1934 (J.S. Caldwell) (USNM, dry mounted) [both in poor condition] . Paratypes 1 ♂, 1 ♀, Florida: Pasco County: New Port Richey, 7.x.1936 (Oman) (USNM, dry mounted).

Diagnosis. Differs from the morphologically similar C. furcata in the apex of the aedeagus and the female terminalia. Apex of distal segment of aedeagus hardly convex (Fig. 62) rather than distinctly convex as in C. furcata

(Fig. 63–65). Female proctiger, in profile, straighter dorsally with slightly shorter distal process that is hardly inflated apically (Fig. 66), compared to C. furcata where the proctiger is more undulated dorsally with a longer, apically slightly inflated distal process (Fig. 69). Dorsal and ventral valvulae are slightly more curved, with apically weakly serrate ventral valvulae in C. bifida (Fig. 67) rather than only weakly curved valvulae, lacking ventral serration as in C. furcata (Fig. 70).

Distribution. USA: Florida: Miami-Dade County (Caldwell 1936: types), Pasco County.

Host plant. Unknown.

Comments. Caldwell (1936) described C. bifida from three females from Miami, FL. He separated the species from the similar C. furcata by the proportionally shorter vertex, the shallower “notch at end of median line” and the less distinct foveal impressions (Fig. 44: C. bifida; Fig. 45: C. furcata). Further he suggested that in C. bifida the build is less robust, the thorax less arched (Fig. 46: C. bifida; Fig. 47: C. furcata) and the forewings are very flaveous with a longer and narrower cell cu 1. The female terminalia of C. bifida (Fig. 66) are said to differ from those of C. furcata (Fig. 69) in the shorter and straighter proctiger, the subgenital plate with a deeper notch at apex (Fig. 68: C. bifida; Fig. 71: C. furcata) and the entire terminalia being “more thickly beset with small setae”. Journet and Vickery (1979) discarded all these differences except for the body size that they interpreted as clinal variation. They listed Aphalara bifida as a junior synonym of Craspedolepta furcata but stated under comments: “Upon ... the variability of the remaining characters used by Caldwell (1936) in discriminating between his species, relegation of A. bifida to the junior synonymy under C. constricta [sic] (Caldwell 1936) is justified.” This is probably an error and should be C. furcata . We agree with Journet and Vickery (1979) that the characters on the head (Fig. 44, 45), thorax (Fig. 46, 47) and forewings, the setosity of the female terminalia (Fig. 66, 69) and the apical notch of the female subgenital plate (Fig. 68, 71) do not significantly differ between C. bifida and C. furcata . The differences in the aedeagus, female proctiger and valvulae are, however, significant enough to consider C. bifida as a good species. Specimens of C. bifida have been collected in January and October, those of C. furcata from Florida in July and October (USNM data).