Afrocerura Kiriakoff, 1963
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.4314/met.v32i1.1 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14197999 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/FC7387C2-1059-FFA7-C955-033319C3C2F3 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Afrocerura Kiriakoff, 1963 |
status |
|
Genus Afrocerura Kiriakoff, 1963 View in CoL
( Figs 18‒31 View Figures 18–31 , genitalia Figs 36‒42, 46)
Type species: Cerura leonensis Hampson, 1910 by original designation.
Species:
Afrocerura leonensis ( Hampson, 1910) View in CoL
Afrocerura bifasciata bifasciata ( Janse, 1920)
Afrocerura bifasciata tanganyikae Kiriakoff, 1963
Afrocerura cameroona ( Bethune-Baker, 1927) View in CoL = Cerura argentata Gaede, 1934 View in CoL syn. nov.
Afrocerura thomensis ( Talbot, 1929) View in CoL
Diagnostic characters of Afrocerura
Species in the genera Cerurina and Afrocerura are externally very similar but differences in both external and genital morphology can be used to separate them. In general, species in the genus Cerurina have a more silvery whitish forewing ground colour, while species in Afrocerura have a more off-white or creamy ground colour. In addition to this, species in the genus Cerurina , have a wider, continuous, more sharply defined blackish oblique antemedial fascia and almost completely absent subterminal fascia on the upper side of their forewings (arrows indicate these characters on Fig. 9 View Figures 9–17 [a & b]), compared to species of Afrocerura where the former character is often interrupted or even absent and the latter almost always present (arrows on Fig. 18 View Figures 18–31 [a & b]). These differential characters based on observations in the current paper are added to characters provided by Kiriakoff (1963) such as wing venation and have proved to be more relevant for distinguishing the two genera.
The two genera can clearly be distinguished by the notable differences in the male genitalia described by Kiriakoff (1963). He referred to Cerurina having a narrowly based uncus, widening distally with a more or less triangular end. Based on examinations in the current paper and observed variation in uncus shape it can be described more accurately as the apex of the uncus having a rounded terminal margin with a depression in the middle (referred to as notched by Kiriakoff), resulting in a slight bifid protuberance in some specimens, but this is quite variable (as seen in Figs 32‒ 35 p View Figures 32‒35 . 10 View Figures 9–17 ). The lateral margins of the uncus tip bear a few small denticulations ( Fig. 32 a View Figures 32‒35 ). Conversely, species in the genus Afrocerura (Figs 36– 42 p. 10) have a broad and rounded uncus base with a narrow tip without denticulate margins like in Cerurina species (Fig. 36 a). A particularly useful character is the presence of the dorsal ridge on the uncus in Afrocerura which can only be seen in certain orientations (Fig. 42 a) and which is absent in Cerurina . In Cerurina the socii (erroneously referred to as the gnathos by Kiriakoff) are well developed, about as long as the uncus, wide, with parallel margins and are somewhat arched, bearing 2 or 3 terminal denticulations ( Fig. 32 b View Figures 32‒35 ) In contrast, Afrocerura have relatively short, slender, slightly arched socii without denticulations (Fig. 36 b). There are differences in their valvae also, with those of Cerurina being club-like and apically rounded ( Fig. 32 c View Figures 32‒35 ) whereas the valvae of Afrocerura are narrower in general (Fig. 37 c), ranging from long and thin ( thomensis , cameroona ) to shorter, stouter and wider at the base ( leonensis , bifasciata ).
Although Afrocerura does not occur in South Africa, Schintlmeister & Witt (2015: 31) discussed the genus briefly in context with Notocerura and executed two taxonomic changes, treating tanganyikae as a subspecies of bifasciata and raising thomensis to species rank.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
SuperFamily |
Noctuoidea |
Family |
|
SubFamily |
Cerurinae |