Papias latonia ( Schaus, 1913 )

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 : 75

Papias latonia ( Schaus, 1913) , revised combination

Returned to its original genus by Evans (1955) and kept it in thus far, Cobalopsis latonia Schaus, 1913 (type locality Costa Rica, syntype NVG 18113G07 in the USNM) is in the same clade with the lectotype of Pamphila integra Mabille, 1891 (NVG-15035E12), the type species of Papias Godman, 1900 , but is distant from Pamphila edda Mabille, 1891 (syntype NVG-15035D09 sequenced), the type species of Cobalopsis Godman, 1900 ( Fig. 14 ). Therefore we transfer C. latonia to the genus Papias . Notably, C. latonia had been placed in Papias by Bell (1946), a treatment that has not caught on, although it appears to be correct. Finally, to stabilize nomenclature, N.V.G. designates a sole syntype in the USNM bearing the following six labels || Nov || JuanVinas | CR || Collection | WmSchaus || Cobalopsis | latonia | type Sch. || Type | No. 11814 | U.S. N.M. || ♂ genitalia | slide #1710 | W.D.F. 7-X-41 || as the lectotype of Cobalopsis latonia Schaus, 1913 . This syntype has expanse of 33 mm, exhibits more extensive spotting, as mentioned and illustrated in the original description ( Schaus 1913), and is from “Juan Vinas” according to its label, a locality given first in the description. The second syntype, now paralectotype, in BMNH, from “Cachi” per its label, is larger (expanse of 35 mm) and darker. For example, the second apical forewing spot mentioned in the original description and obvious in the original illustration is not noticeable on dorsal surface of the paralectotype, and a row of five pale spots on ventral hindwing is poorly defined. Furthermore, paralectotype identification label in Schaus’ handwriting lacks the word “type” present on the label of lectotype. For these reasons, we conclude that it was the USNM syntype (now lectotype) that was illustrated, described, and considered “type” by Schaus, and not the BMNH syntype (now paralectotype), despite the statement “In British Museum” as the last line in the original description, published in the Proceedings of the zoological Society of London ( Schaus 1913). Schaus mentions collecting these specimens during “a recent visit to Costa Rica ”, and it is possible that due to the venue of publication, the original intent was to deposit the “type”, now the lectotype, in BMNH that never realized.

Figures

Figure 14. Genomic tree of Moncina, part 2. See Fig. 1 legend for notations.