Cymaenes lochius Plötz, 1882 (Plotz. Namely, 1882)

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui & Grishin, Nick V., 2022, Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), Insecta Mundi 2022 (921), pp. 1-135 : 56-57

Cymaenes lochius Plötz, 1882 , new combination

Placed by Evans (1955) as a subspecies of Lerema accius (J. E. Smith, 1797) (type locality USA: Georgia), Hesperia lochius Plötz, 1882 (type locality Venezuela: La Guaira), was more recently treated as a species level taxon, for example, by Llorente et al. (1990). The original description of H. lochius , with the relevant parts gathered throughout the identification key, follows translated from Plötz (1882b): “Dorsal side of wings black-brown. Forewing with mostly white, often very faint glass spots, which are sometimes missing except for the three dots in front of the apex. Forewing without a hyaline spot in the discal cell. Fringes not checkered. Forewing cells 4 (M 2 -M 3) and 5 (M 1 -M 2) without spots, also cell 1 (CuA 2 -1A+2A) [without a spot]. Hindwing with a slightly wavy outer margin, violet-gray below, light brown on the anal margin to vein 2 (CuA 2), broad brown on the costal margin, in cell 7 (Sc+R 1 -RS) with two violet-gray spots, after the middle two brown transverse bands from cell 6 (RS-M 1) to 2 (CuA 1 -CuA 2). Forewing with three hyaline dots at the apex and beneath a very small white dot in cell 3 (M 3 -CuA 1). ♂.”

Similarly to Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 (type locality Venezuela) (see above), we found Godman’s copy of the unpublished Plötz’s H. lochius drawing in the Library of the Natural History Museum London ( Fig. 12k ). This illustration, possibly used by Draudt (1921 –1924) (plate 187c[4,5], without a violet tint of the original copy, and Fig. 12l here), agrees with the original description, and with all likelihood shows a male, as stated in the description, and as we also deduce from its narrower and more pointed wings. There is no obvious stigma on the forewing, typical for the species Evans identified as Lerema accius lochius . Moreover, no stigma is mentioned in the original description of H. lochius . Judging from Godman’s copies, Plötz illustrated stigmas where they were well-defined (for example, in other Lerema Scudder, 1872 taxa), and mentioned them in his key. For instance, a stigma is mentioned for the species placed before H. lochius in the Plötz’s key, called “ Cannae HS ”. The description of Plötz’s “Cannae” agrees better with the taxon Evans identified as L. a. lochius , than with Cynea (Quinta) cannae ( Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) , and could have been Plötz’s misidentification. In any case, it seems likely that males of H. lochius lack stigma, while males of the taxon Evans identified as L. a. lochius possess a well-developed stigma.

Thus, our analysis reveals that the taxon Evans identified as L. a. lochius , is not the species that Plötz described. More, out of all currently known Neotropical species of Hesperiidae , Cymaenes laureolus ( Schaus, 1913) agrees best with what we learned about H. lochius ( Fig. 12m,n ). It lacks a stigma in males, has a wavy hindwing margin, most specimens are quite dark, only spotted at forewing apex, additionally with a single dash in cell 3 (M 3 -CuA 1) on ventral forewing. Ventral hindwing pattern of C. laureolus (could be poorly expressed in some specimens) while different from that of the taxon Evans identified as L. a. lochius , is a match to H. lochius Plötz. Namely , a prominent, nearly square spot in the middle of cell 7 (Sc+R 1 -RS) is aligned with the dark discal band; this spot is distad of paler basal area (not a small spot aligned with basal violet-gray area, spot basad of the dark discal band as in Evans’ L. a. lochius ), separated from costa by a dark-brown area; another similar to it spot in the same cell closer to the wing base (frequently fading within darker background); a continuous and nearly straight violet-gray band between veins 7 (RS) and 2 (CuA 2) (not a curved band with the spot in cell 6 (RS-M 1) offset basad, and aligned with the brown discal band in Evans’ L. a. lochius ); hindwing is somewhat paler in the submarginal area and pale-brown from the inner margin to at least vein 1A+2A-3A and partly in the previous cell CuA 2 -1A+2A.

In summary, the most noticeable difference between the two species in hindwing pattern is that in H. lochius Plötz , the pale spot aligned with the discal brown band is in cell 7 (Sc+R 1 -RS), and this spot is rather large and square, with violet tint (as in species of Cymaenes Scudder, 1872 ), but in Evans’ L. a. lochius , which was treated as a species-level taxon by Llorente et at. (1990), the pale spot aligned with the discal brown band is in cell 6 (RS-M 1) and this spot is smaller, rounder and yellower, more similar to that in L. accius .

While we are not able to accomplish this task in the present work, search for the type specimens of H. lochius will be conducted and, if unsuccessful, a neotype from Venezuela that agrees with the original description and matches closely the copy of Plötz’s illustration (for example, at least lacks stigma in male) will be selected. This species from Venezuela is seemingly quite close to mostly Central American C. laureolus ( Fig. 12m,n ) and may even be conspecific with it. However, in case we are erroneous in our present assessment based only of the original description and the unpublished illustration, not willing to prematurely synonymize C. laureolus with it, we tentatively keep H. lochius as a valid species to form Cymaenes lochius Plötz, 1882 , new combination, currently recorded only from Venezuela.

Figures

Figure 12. Specimens of Hesperiinae. a) Decinea colombiana Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; b) ibid. ventral; c) Cynea rope Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; d) ibid. ventral; e) Hesperia dido Plötz, 1882 neotype dorsal; f) ibid. ventral; g) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of H. dido, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 577; h) ibid. no. 577a; i) Lerema lucius Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; j) ibid. ventral; k) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of Hesperia lochius Plötz, 1882, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 576; l) H. lochius illustration (left-right inverted for comparison) from the plate 187c[5] in Draudt (1921-1924), ventral; m) Cymaenes laureolus (Schaus, 1913) ventral, Panama: Cocoli, 4-Oct-1962, leg. G. B. Small, NVG-7250 [USNM]; n) ibid. Mexico: Veracruz, Coatepec, Jun-1917, NVG-15111G01 [AMNH]; o) Lerodea sonex Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; p) ibid. ventral; q) Metiscus goth Grishin, sp. n. holotype dorsal; r) Godman’s copy of an unpublished Plötz’s illustration of Apaustus vicinus Plötz, 1884, left/right dorsal/ventral, no. 764; s) specimen of Corticea from the Staudinger and Bang-Haas collection bearing an old identification label “Padraona vicinus”, NVG-18096C08, dorsal; t) ibid. ventral. Specimen images are to scale and missing data are in the text. Photographs a–d (by Bernard Hermier) and g, h, k, r (by N.V.G.) are © of the Trustees of the Natural History Museum London and are made available under Creative Commons License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), and photographs o, p are © of Jim Brock, used with permission.