Rhodostrophia vinacearia (Moore, 1868)

Kumari, Shabnam, Bandyopadhyay, Uttaran, Uniyal, Virendra Prasad, Chandra, Kailash & Hausmann, Axel, 2024, Integrative taxonomic review of the genus Rhodostrophia Hübner, 1823 and its allied genus Tanaotrichia Warren, 1893 (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) from the Western Himalaya, Zootaxa 5519 (1), pp. 59-89 : 77-78

Rhodostrophia vinacearia (Moore, 1868)

[ Fig. 27–28 , 61 ]

[TL: North East Bengal, India]

Anisodes vinacearia Moore, 1867 , Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London: 642.

Rhodostrophia vinacearia ; Hampson, 1895; The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, 3: 455.

Rhodostrophia vinacearia ; Prout, 1913; In: Seitz, A. (Ed.) (1912–1916): The Macrolepidoptera of the world, vol. 4: 42.

Rhodostrophia vinacearia ; Prout, 1938; In: Seitz, A. (Ed.) (1920–1941): The Macrolepidoptera of the world, vol. 12: 145, pl. 15, fig. d.

Rhodostrophia vinacearia ; Joshi et al. 2021; Insecta: Lepidoptera : Heterocera (Moths). Faunal Diversity of Biogeographic Zones of India: North-East. Published by the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 511–576 pp.

Material examined: INDIA: 1♀, Himachal Pradesh, Dist. Kangra, Dhauladhar Mountain Range, Nora , 32.26927° N, 076.28972° E, 1455 m, 09.X.2020; leg. S. Kumari.

Description:

Forewing length: Female: 14 mm.

Female: Antennae filiform in famale. Vertex whitish and with a slight pale brownish-grey tint. Frons dark chestnut-brown. Labial palpi short, directed upward slightly reaching the base of frons, ochreous-brown with slight rose-red irroration. Collar, tegulae, patagia, and dorsal thoracic and abdominal region pale ochreous with a minor grey tint. Ventral side with slight rose-red irroration especially on the femur and tibial part of the foretibia. Legs feature as described for female of the genus. Forewing pale ochreous with slight greyish tint, elongated with acute apex. Basal costal border chestnut-brown. Three chestnut or vinous-brown transverse lines. Antemedial line bends sharply below costa, slightly out curved, runs obliquely towards the inner margin and continues to the hindwing. Postmedial line oblique, slightly sinuous with diffused concolorous shade on the outer side, obsolescent towards costa. Submarginal line thinner and wavy. Marginal line dark chestnut-brown. Discocellular dot comparatively large, dark black with chestnut-brown scales. Hindwing colour and markings similar to forewing; basal half of costal margin paler; discocellular dot smaller. Underside dark yellow with chestnut-brown irroration especially on the basal half of the forewing, markings as on upper side, darker, prominent, chestnut-brown and without antemedial line; inner margin pale yellow and without irroration. Discocellular dot prominent, dark black and slightly elongated ( Fig. 27 ).

Female genitalia ( Fig. 61 ): Papillae anales oval, setose, distal margins with a small central concavity; posterior apophyses three times the length of anterior apophyses. Ductus bursae comparatively shorter than the corpus bursae, strongly sclerotised, except for a non-slerotised submedian area, wider with a moderately acute protrusion near antrum. Corpus bursae membranous, ovally-elongated, signum collar-shaped signum next to the junction with ductus bursae. 7 th sternite sclerotised, posterior margin smooth and concave.

Differential diagnosis: R. vinacearia closely resembles R. similata and R. stigmatica ( Figs. 19–22 ) in its external appearance. However, it is distinguishable by the discocellular dot, larger than R. similata but smaller than R. stigmatica ( Prout 1938) ; postmedial line comparatively more outwardly curved (than the two species) below costa while strongly incurved on the posterior half near inner margin with the concolourous outer shade more obsolescent towards costa (distinct throughout in R. similata and replaced by a single, distinct line followed by traces of a very indistinct shade giving an impression of the outer margin of the postmedial band in R. stigmatica ). The female genitalia ( Fig. 61 ) is characterised by a distinct rather acute protrusion near antrum; comparatively deep and narrow central concavity on the posterior margin of the papillae anales; posterior margin of the 7 th sternite smooth and concave (irregular in R. stigmatica , Fig. 59 ); ductus bursae with small, non-sclerotised submedian area (sclerotised throughout and strongly bent medially in R. similata, Cui et al. 2019 ).

Distribution: India: West Bengal ( Prout 1913, 1938), Meghalaya (Joshi et al. 2021). Elsewhere: Not documented.

Genetic data: Not generated.

Bionomics: The life history and larval stages of this species have not yet been documented. The earlier (only) documentation of adults was from the Eastern parts (West Bengal and Meghalaya) of the IHR. This is the first documentation of this species from the Western Himalayan region, that is, the DMR. However, in our field surveys, we observed only a single female specimen flying in the Tropical Dry deciduous forests (5B/C2) (with few pine trees scattered in the adjoining areas) in the 1400–1700 m elevation zone.

Remarks: The above description of R. vinacearia is based on a single female specimen in the primary collection from the North Western Himalayan region (DMR). The specimen was identified under the species name R. vinacearia as it differs from the two other closely related species R. stigmatica (discussed in this study) and R. similata (discussed and illustrated from China by Cui et al. 2019). Also, according to the species description and diagnosis of R. vinacearia provided in the literature, the specimen seems to resemble R. vinacearia more closely than the other two species. Moore (1867) described the species based on a male specimen, and the original description was very short and generalistic. Also, the holotype ( Fig. 28 ) appears to be more similar to R. stigmatica ( Fig. 19–22 ). Butler (1889) independently described R. stigmatica from Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, India. Later, Prout (1913) found a similarity between the type of R. vinacearia and the specimens of R. stigmatica , and based on the prioritisation, the former was considered the valid name and stigmatica as the aberration. However, upon further examination of both species, they were further separated as independent species by Prout (1938). Therefore, in future research, one should consider the comprehensive examinations of both the type and other specimens of R. vinacearia in the NHMUK collection to evaluate the validity of the species and potential re-designation of the type.

Figures

FIGURES 17–28. Habitus images of Rhodostrophia and Tanaotrichia spp. 17. R. pelloniaria (17a–17b: Male, Holotype, NHMUK). 18. R. khasiana (18a–18b: Female, Syntype, NHMUK). 19–22. R. stigmatica (19a–19b: Male, 20a–20b: Female, 21a–21b: Male, Syntype, NHMUK, 22a–22b: Female, Syntype, NHMUK). 23–26. R. tristrigalis (23a–23b: Male, 24a–24b: Female, 25a–25b: Male, Syntype, NHMUK, 26a–26b: Female, Syntype, NHMUK). 27–28. R. vinacearia (27a–27b: Female, 28a–28b: Male, Syntype, NHMUK).

FIGURES 48–62. Male genitalia images of Rhodostrophia and Tanaotrichia spp. 48–54. Male 8th Abdominal Sternite. 48. R. borealis, 49. R. cinerascens*, 50. R. herbicolens, 51. R. pelloniaria, 52. R. stigmatica, 53. R. tristrigalis, 54. T. prasonaria trilineata. 55–62. Female genitalia images of Rhodostrophia and Tanaotrichia spp. 55. R. borealis, 56. R. cinerascens*, 57. R. herbicolens, 58. R. pelloniaria, 59. R. stigmatica, 60. R. tristrigalis, 61. R. vinacearia, 62. T. prasonaria trilineata. *Specimens and genitalia slide at ZSM-SNSB, Munich; slides and photos prepared by Dr Axel Hausmann.