Sitochroa palealis (Denis & Schiffermueller , 1775)

Alipanah, Helen, Malm, Tobias & Asselbergs, Jan, 2020, A new species of Sitochroa Huebner, 1825 (Lepidoptera, Crambidae, Pyraustinae) from Iran, with taxonomic notes on the genus, Nota Lepidopterologica 43, pp. 61-76 : 61

publication ID	https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/nl.43.49128
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:AFE0F1E9-9E4B-4E55-9A64-73FA955F1895
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/ACAF7D44-5B3A-538C-B31E-87437D280682
treatment provided by	Nota Lepidopterologica by Pensoft
scientific name	Sitochroa palealis (Denis & Schiffermueller , 1775)
status

Treatment

Sitochroa palealis (Denis & Schiffermueller, 1775) Figs 1C-F View Figure 1 , 4A-D View Figure 4 , 5A-D View Figure 5 , 6A-G View Figure 6 , 7A-C View Figure 7

Loxostege farsalis Amsel, 1950: 246, figs 38, 79; syn. nov.

Material examined.

Loxostege farsalis : Holotype, ♂, Iran, Fars, Straβe Ardekan- Talochosroe, Comé (= Sepidan- Tall Khosrow Rd., Komehr), 2600 m, vii.1937, coll. Brandt (genitalia preparation No. 2936, NHRS-TOBI 000004701), paratype, ♂, same data as holotype (genitalia preparation No. NHRS-TOBI 000004704), allotype, ♀, same data as holotype (genitalia preparation No. NHRS-TOBI 000004702).

Other specimens.

Iran, Ardebil Prov[ince]: 1 ♀, Sabalān, Qotur Suiee, 38°21 ’54” N, 47°51 ’43” E, 2276 m, 25.-26.vii.2007, Ālipanāh, Zahiri, Falsafi leg.; East Āzarbāijān Prov[ince]: 1 ♂, Zonuz, 1.ix.1965, Arghand leg. (genitalia preparation No. HA-2511, HMIM); Gilān Prov[ince]: 6 ♂♂, Rasht, 6, 10.vii.1971, ?.viii.1971, 30.v.1972, Shenāsi leg. (genitalia preparation No. HA-2453, HMIM), 2 ♂♂, Asālem, Sheykh Mahal, 160 m, 28.-30.vi.1977, Pāzuki, Mortazavihā leg., 2 ♀♀, Asālem, Lākudeh, 250 m, 8, 9.vii.2000, Barāri, Mofidi-Neyestānak, Ebrāhimi, Deuve leg., 1 ♀, Āstārā- Ardebil Rd., Meshend, Goudi Evlar vill., N 38°23 ’32” N, 48°35 ’59” E, 488 m, 1.viii.2008, Nematiān, Ālipanāh leg., 1 ♂ (without abdomen), Fuman, Gashtrudkhān, 38°15 ’15” N, 47°23 ’52” E, 295 m, 29.vi.2008, Ālipanāh, Nematiān leg.; Kohgiluyeh and Boyerahmad Prov [ince]: 1 ♂, Yāsuj, Sisakht, 2250 m, 13.vi.1972, Ebert, Pāzuki leg. (genitalia preparation No. HA-2415, HMIM), 1 ♀ (without abdomen), 15 km SE. Yāsuj, 2050 m, 15.vi.1972, Ebert, Pāzuki leg.; Māzandarān Prov [ince]: 1 ♂, Bābolsar, 10.ix.1949, Farahbakhsh leg.; Razavi Khorāsān Prov [ince]: 1 ♂, N. Tandoreh National Park, 56 km after Tivān Ranger St., Dolatshānlu vill. Rd. (km 15), Bābāneyestān, 37°30 ’14” N, 58°45 ’01” E, 1178 m, 6.vi.2016, Ālipanāh, Falsafi leg., 1 ♂, N. Tandoreh National Park (1 km after Alibulāgh Ranger Sta.), 37°33 ’25” N; 58°38 ’43” E, 1297 m, 7.vi.2016, Falsafi, Ālipanāh leg.; South Khorāsān Prov [ince]: 1 ♂ 1 ♀, Tabas, Palm Res. St. & Adaptaion, 33°35 ’57” N, 056°54 ’54” E, 678 m, 31.v.2016, Ālipanāh, Falsafi leg. (genitalia preparation No. HA-2513, HMIM).

Remarks.

Loxostege farsalis was described by Amsel (1950) based on two pairs (as stated by him, two males and two females; but direct examination of the type specimens indicated three males and one female) collected in Iran (Fars Prov.: Comé [= Komehr]). Amsel (1950) recognized the close affinity between S. palealis and L. farsalis in some characteristics of the forewing pattern and male genitalia. According to him (Amsel, 1950), these two species are very similar in forewing pattern, but in L. farsalis the markings of the forewing are weakly expressed so that the marginal (= subterminal) line is hardly visible (Fig. 4A-D View Figure 4 ). Amsel (1950) also stated that S. palealis is always bigger than L. farsalis and has a distinct marginal line on the underside of the forewing (Fig. 4B, D View Figure 4 ) (missing in S. palealis ). Regarding male genitalia, Amsel (1950) noted that the uncus of L. farsalis is wider than that of S. palealis ; the paired processes of the clasper are directed downward in S. palealis while being perpendicular to the edge of the valvae in L. farsalis ; and the shape of the processes at the internal base of the clasper in these two species is different. Nothing was mentioned about female genitalia ( Amsel 1950).

In the present study, we examined 21 S. palealis specimens, including the genitalia of three males and one female. Among this material were a few specimens with weakly expressed markings of the forewing as seen in the L. farsalis syntypes. The latter specimens are slightly larger than the others, with hardly visible markings in the hindwings (Fig. 1C, D View Figure 1 ), but their genitalia are typical of S. palealis . A careful examination of the type specimens of L. farsalis revealed that they also have a distinct subterminal line (the marginal line stated by Amsel (1950)) on the upper- and underside of the forewing, although it is weakly expressed in L. farsalis . These type specimens are also similar to specimens of S. palealis in the shape of frons, labial palpi and cover scales of head (Fig. 5A-D View Figure 5 ).

We dissected two paratypes (a male and the female) of L. farsalis , and compared their genitalia with those of specimens of S. palealis . The results showed that the female genitalia are exactly the same (Fig. 7A-C View Figure 7 ). Almost the same result was found for the male genitalia (Fig. 6A-G View Figure 6 ). The shape and width of the uncus are nearly the same (Fig. 6A, C View Figure 6 ) and the shape of processes at the internal base of the clasper and the paired clasper processes are similar (Fig. 6A-F View Figure 6 ). Amsel (1950) stated that the paired processes of the clasper are directed downward in S. palealis , but it is not known if Amsel had actually examined the type specimens of S. palealis . We didn’t have access to the type specimens of S. palealis . However, based on Solis (2010: 509) and Slamka (2013: 154), these processes are perpendicular to the edge of the valvae in S. palealis , as is the case in the L. farsalis male paratype dissected. According to Hannemann (1964), the holotype of S. palealis is " vernichted " (= destroyed). Also, as stated by Horn et al. (1990), the type material of S. palealis was presumably burned with the rest of the Denis & Schiffermüller collection in the natural history museum of Wien in 1848. We are not aware of any neotype designation.

In the holotype of L. farsalis , the phallus was not extracted from the remaining parts of the genitalia and the latter were not well cleaned. Because the shape of the phallus is not clearly recognizable in this preparation, a male paratype was dissected and examined. The shape of its phallus is very similar to that of our dissected specimens of S. palealis , except that the distal process of the phallus is slightly longer and more distinctly curved upward (Fig. 6A View Figure 6 ) compared with S. palealis (Fig. 6C, G View Figure 6 ) (see also Solis (2010) and Slamka (2013)). The straight distal process of the phallus in American populations of S. palealis figured by Solis (2010: 509) differs from the nearly curved process in our examined specimens of S. palealis and paratype of L. farsalis , as well as slight difference in the length of this process among these specimens, may indicate that this character is slightly variable among different populations.

The sinus between the prongs of the clasper on the valvae of S. palealis is mostly without dentation (Fig. 6E, F View Figure 6 ), but in some specimens a small dent is visible in this area (Fig. 6D View Figure 6 ). The same is true for L. farsalis , as in the examined paratype there was one dent at the edge of the sinus in each valva (Fig. 6A View Figure 6 ), and in the holotype one valva has no dent at the edge of this sinus (Fig. 6B View Figure 6 ). In both species, there is also a variation in the length of the external prong of the clasper. In the holotype of L. farsalis (Fig. 6B View Figure 6 ), the external prong is longer when compared with that of the paratype (Fig. 6A View Figure 6 ). Similarly, in S. palealis , the specimens collected in Rasht (Fig. 6F View Figure 6 ) have a longer external prong than that of specimens collected in Zonuz and Yasuj (Fig. 6C-E View Figure 6 ).

Therefore, based on our analysis, L. farsalis is regarded as a junior synonym of S. palealis .

Distribution.

Widespread in the Palaearctic, but rare in southern Scandinavia and only an occasional migrant in England, India (Slamka, 2013), and Iran [Fars Province: Come (=Komehr), Gilan Province: Tahergourabe; Golestan Province: Golestan National Park (Ghaleh Palangan)] ( Amsel 1950, 1959; Wieser et al. 2001).