identifier	taxonID	type	CVterm	format	language	title	description	additionalInformationURL	UsageTerms	rights	Owner	contributor	creator	bibliographicCitation
9031F74FFFDEFFF45FF72C07FE70C892.text	9031F74FFFDEFFF45FF72C07FE70C892.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Lephana ovalis (Rothschild 2021) Cock 2021	<div><p>Lephana ovalis (Rothschild, 1917), comb. nov. (Erebidae, Anobiinae)</p> <p>(Figs. 1–3)</p> <p>BIN: BOLD:AEF1848 (doi: pending).</p> <p>Rothschild (1917) described Apella [sic] ovalis Rothschild, 1917 as a species of Notodontidae from Venezuela, and it appears in the Notodontidae lists of Schintlmeister (2013) and Becker (2014) as Apela ovalis. It occurs in Trinidad (author’s unpublished records; Fig. 1). DNA barcodes from Trinidad and Colombia occur together in BIN BOLD:AEF 1848 in BOLD (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007), on either side of the Venezuela type locality, indicating that this BIN can be assumed to represent L. ovalis. Given the strong scale tuft on the forewing dorsum, it is understandable that this species might be mistaken for a species of Apela. However, the forewing venation is quadrifid (vein M 2 nearer to M 3 at its base on the cell than to M 1) as opposed to trifid (vein M 2 nearer M 1 at base or approximately central), indicating this is not a species of Notodontidae (Miller 1991). Based on the curation of the NHMUK and the on-line NHMUK LepIndex database (Beccaloni et al. 2003), it has been treated as belonging in the genus Anoba Walker, 1858 (Erebidae, Anobinae). Although this species does not appear in Poole’s (1989) catalogue of Noctuidae (as then defined), the unpublished combination Anoba ovalis does appear on the internet (e.g. ADW 2021, CoL 2021, GBIF 2021).</p> <p>Following the introduction of the tribe Anobini (type genus Anoba) by Holloway (2005), Lafontaine and Walsh (2010) raised it to subfamily Anobinae Holloway, 2005, and pointed out that the New World generic classification based on Anoba Walker, 1858, Baniana Walker, 1858, Deinopa Walker, 1856 and Lephana Walker, 1866 is very confused. They stated that ‘In all genera of Anobinae the head and prothoracic collar are dark and contrast with the color of the thorax, and the middle of the male valva has a lightly sclerotized “window,” usually in the same area as the clasper. Males have bipectinate antennae, or the seta on each side of the flagellomeres is enlarged giving the impression that the antenna is narrowly bipectinate.’ They did not mention Apela ovalis as a possible species of Anoba, or Anobinae.</p> <p>Apela ovalis has the head and prothoracic collar dark, contrasting with the colour of the thorax (Figs. 1, 2). The male (and female) antennae are not bipectinate, but the seta on each side of the flagellomeres is enlarged which can be said to give the impression that the antenna is narrowly bipectinate (Fig. 2 A, B, D). In addition, both sexes have a scale tuft on the forewing dorsum at about one-third (Fig. 2 E). Lafontaine and Walsh (2010) considered Lephana to be characterised by a falcate forewing and ‘a triangular patch of scales projecting below the hind margin of the forewing at the antemedial line’. The latter character is perhaps more important, since Poole (1989) includes Lephana muffula (Guenée, 1852) in Lephana; it has a scale tuft, but the margin below the forewing apex is only marginally concave (Fig. 3).</p> <p>Lephana muffula was described from French Guiana (as Herminodes muffula), but I have not examined the type, a female from French Guiana, and Poole (1989) did not mention its location. Poole (1989) transferred it to Lephana. I identified L. muffula from Trinidad by comparison with the types of its synonyms Heterogramma appensa Felder and Rogenhofer, 1874 (in Felder et al. 1865 –1874) (NHMUK, ♀ TL unknown) and Baniana projiciens Butler, 1879 (NHMUK, ♀ [TL Brazil, Amazonas]) and the NHMUK series of L. muffula, which is comprised of females only. Working with the relatively species-poor Trinidad fauna, I have been able to identify the male of L. muffula based on elimination of alternatives, and confirmed by similarities of pattern dorsally and ventrally, the same slightly concave forewing margin below the apex, and scale tuft (Fig. 3). The male was described as Anoba suffusa Hampson, 1924, which I identified by comparison with the type (NHMUK, ♂ TL Trinidad) and the NHMUK series comprising males only. Thus, L. muffula is sexually dimorphic and A. suffusa is a synonym of L. muffula. Sequences and associated images from Costa Rica and French Guiana in BOLD (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007) as BIN (Barcode Index Number; Ratnasingham and Hebert 2013) BOLD:AAC6008 (dx.doi.org/10.5883/BOLD:AAC6008) confirm this association. Other species of Lephana do not show sexual dimorphism, e.g. L. excisata Kaye, 1925 (type ♀, TL Trinidad, NHMUK), as is the case with Apela ovalis (Fig. 1). Accordingly, and pending a needed revision of the genera of Anobinae, I transfer Appella [sic] ovalis Rothschild, 1917 to Lephana as Lephana ovalis (Rothschild, 1917) comb. nov.</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Curepe, MVL: ♂ x.1972 [R.E. Cruttwell] [UWIZM CABI.4541]; ♂ 21.iii.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.4540]. Morne Bleu, Textel Installation, at light: 2♂ 13.ix.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, NHMUK]; ♀ 1–20.iii.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. St Benedict’s, Pax Guest House, at light: ♂ 10– 16.vii.1996 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. St. Benedicts, Pax Guest House, MVL facing North: ♂ 16.i.2004 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, DNA 432]</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFDEFFF45FF72C07FE70C892	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFDCFFF15FF72A4CFDF0CE2F.text	9031F74FFFDCFFF15FF72A4CFDF0CE2F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Crinodes insularis (Cock 2003) Rothschild 1917	<div><p>Crinodes insularis Rothschild, 1917 stat. nov. (Notodontidae ¸ Dudusinae)</p> <p>(Figs. 4–6)</p> <p>Rothschild (1917) described insularis from Trinidad as a subspecies of C. striolata Schaus, 1901, and referred to ten specimens, at that time in the Tring Museum, which are now in the NHMUK. Schintlmeister (2013) treated insularis as a subspecies of C. guatemalena Druce, 1887 (in Druce 1881 –1900) but I have not located any published taxonomic act for this combination. Subsequently, Becker (2014) reverted to treating insularis as a subspecies of C. striolata, again with no formal taxonomic act.</p> <p>Crinodes striolata Schaus was described from eastern Brazil (Pernambuco), and is now considered to be restricted to eastern and southern Brazil, northern Argentina and Paraguay (Schintlmeister 2019). Crinodes fuscipennis Rothschild, 1917 and C. insularis were considered to be subspecies of C. striolata by Becker (2014), but Schintlmeister (2019) raised C. fuscipennis to species status, giving its distribution as widespread in South America, including Trinidad, and made ssp. insularis a synonym of C. fuscipennis.</p> <p>Trinidad material in MJWC was identified as ssp. insularis by visual comparison with the Trinidad type series, including the male specimen that was labelled as ‘type’ in NHMUK. Schintlmeister (2019) does not state whether this was the syntype specimen he designated as lectotype, which I have not specifically examined. Additional Trinidad material in MJWC was identified as C. fuscipennis from Schintlmeister (2019). Rothschild (1917) indicated that C. insularis differs from the nominate subspecies of C. striolata (which closely resembles C. fuscipennis in wing colour and markings) ‘in being suffused with dark brownish cinnamon which gives it a washed-out appearance’. Schintlmeister (2019) considered this to be within the range of variation of mainland C. fuscipennis. The wing markings of insularis and fuscipennis are more or less identical in pattern, but in addition to the washed-out effect, the extent of the dark discal and postdiscal striations is reduced in insularis, and the pale basal area that extends along the costa is a much stronger contrast to the adjacent dark brown post basal area in insularis. Both forms fly together in Trinidad and are sometimes caught together (author’s unpublished data; Fig. 4). However, having reared a small group of caterpillars in 1978, which all produced adults of ssp. insularis (Cock 2003), I suspected that two closely related Crinodes species occur in Trinidad.</p> <p>Dissections of the terminalia of males of typical C. fuscipennis from Trinidad and specimens resembling insularis (Figs. 5, 6) show small but clear differences between them. The divide in the posterior margin of the A8 sternite is short and rounded in material matching C. fuscipennis whereas it is longer, and narrowly acute in material matching insularis. The dissections of C. fuscipennis illustrated by Schintlmeister (2019, Figs. 16a, 16d) have this split short (like Trinidad fuscipennis), but acute (more like Trinidad insularis). A more striking and significant difference is in the arrangement of the basal ventral projections of the gnathos, which Schintlmeister (2019) refers to as the gnathoi (robust, pointed spines, placed distally) and socii (strongly serrated portion, on a stalk, placed basally). In C. fuscipennis, the basal portions of the socii are at right angles to the gnathos, columnar and widening slightly distally; the distal serrated portion of the socii is parallel to the gnathos and nearly touching the apex of the gnathoi (Fig. 5 C). In C. insularis, the basal portions of the socii are inclined anteriorly relative to the gnathos, and distally there is a strong bulge on the posterior margin; the serrated portion of the socii is at an angle to the gnathos and the posterior end is level with the base of the socii and distant from the apex of the gnathoi (Fig. 6 E). The socii are rigid and not articulated, and the fact that the gnathoi and socii are the most heavily chitinised part of the male terminalia suggests that their structure is important for copulation. These characters are clearly visible in lateral view, but it is not possible to judge them in the slide-mounted preparations examined and illustrated by Schintlmeister (2019), as these structures are flattened and distorted. Based on these differences, I consider C. insularis stat. nov. to be a valid species, distinct from C. fuscipennis. When DNA barcodes are available for both, this conclusion should be tested.</p> <p>Crinodes insularis is an occasional species in both forested and suburban areas of Trinidad. The fact that Schintlmeister (2019) mentions this form occurring within the range of variation of mainland C. fuscipennis suggests that C. insularis may prove to be more widespread. Neither species is known from Tobago (Cock 2017).</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Crinodes insularis. [Arima Valley], St. Pat [rick]s: ♀ 25.v.1948 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1791]. Arima Valley, Simla, at light: 2♂ 24.iv.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, dissection 1017]; UWIZM CABI.1472]; ♀ 2.v.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]; 2♂, 2♀ 4.vi.1995 (M. Morais) [UWIZM CABI.1474, 1478, 1491, 1494]. Curepe, at light: ♀ 3.vi.1979 (M.J.W.Cock) [NHMUK]; ♂ 18–31.v.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1485]; ♀ 28.v.1982 (F.D. Bennett) [UWIZM CABI.1496]. Maracas Valley: ♀ collected as caterpillar on indet. vine [Gouania sp.], 25.vi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Morne Bleu, Textel Installation, at light: ♀ 14.vii.1989 (R.G. Brown &amp; T. Cassie) [UWIZM CABI.1499]. Port of Spain, Belmont: 3♂, 2♀ (E. Lafond) [NHMUK]. St. Ann’s: ♂ [NHMUK, type of C. striolata insularis]. Trinidad, ‘ S.P. ’ [this does not represent any obvious locality and may refer to a collector]: ♂ 1.vi.1949 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1789].</p> <p>Crinodes fuscipennis. Arima Valley, Simla, at light: 3♂, ♀ 24.iv.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, dissection 1016]; 2♂, ♀ UWIZM CABI.1470, 1475, 1500]; ♂, 2♀ 2.v.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [♂ UWIZM CABI.1473; ♀ MJWC; ♀ UWIZM CABI.1497] 9♂, 3♀ 4.vi.1995 (M. Morais) [UWIZM CABI.1476, 1477, 1480–1484, 1487, 1489, 1490, 1492, 1493, 1495]. Curepe, at light: ♂ 16.vi.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1479]. Curepe, MVL: ♂ 1.x.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1469]; 2♂ 25.v.1982 (F.D. Bennett) [UWIZM CABI.1471, 1486]. Morne Bleu, Textel Installation, at light: ♀ 14.vii.1989 (R.G. Brown &amp; T. Cassie) [UWIZM CABI.1498]. Palmiste: ♂ 1.vi.1949 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1790]</p></div> 	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFDCFFF15FF72A4CFDF0CE2F	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFD9FFF05FF7298EFEF6C8A7.text	9031F74FFFD9FFF05FF7298EFEF6C8A7.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Farigia magniplaga Schaus 1905	<div><p>Farigia magniplaga Schaus, 1905 (Notodontidae, Heterocampinae)</p> <p>(Figs. 7, 8)</p> <p>Farigia xenopitha Druce, 1911, syn. nov.</p> <p>Schaus (1905) described F. magniplaga from French Guiana (♂ type USNM) and the type is illustrated by Schintlmeister (2016) and USNM (2020). Subsequently, Druce (1911) described F. xenopitha from Caparo, Trinidad, and a single male type from Cuparo (an alternative spelling of Caparo in material from the beginning of the last century) is in NHMUK. It resembles ♂ 1 in Fig. 7, but is paler. This record was repeated by subsequent authors.</p> <p>In their catalogue of Trinidad moths, Kaye and Lamont (1927) appear to have overlooked Druce’s description as they do not include F. xenopithia, but they do include F. moresca Schaus, 1910 (type USNM, ♂ Costa Rica), citing a specimen from St. Ann’s in NHMUK. Farigia moresca is now treated as a synonym of F. vecina Schaus, 1901 (type USNM, ♀ TL Mexico) (Schaus 1928). I located the St. Ann’s specimen in NHMUK, and considered it, along with other material from Trinidad to represent a single phenotypically variable species, which at that time I identified as F. xenopithia by comparison with the type.</p> <p>Thiaucourt (1988) noted that the type of F. xenopithia bears a close resemblance to the Central American species F. vecina. In the same paper, he suggested that of the seven species assigned to the vecina group, only F. magniplaga occurs in the Guiana-Amazon area. Paul Thiaucourt (pers. comm.) subsequently suggested to me that F. xenopithia may be a synonym of the variable species, F. magniplaga. The lectotype of F. magniplaga, shown online (USNM 2020) and by Schintlmeister (2016), has an extensive dark patch on the forewing dorsum, and the rest of the forewing is mostly pale brown and mossy green; it does not fall within the range of variation I have observed in Trinidad (Fig. 7). However, no taxonomic changes were formalized and Becker (2014) listed all seven species of this group as valid. I have now dissected a Trinidad male resembling the type of F. xenopithia (Fig. 8), and found it to match Thiaucourt’s terminalia figures of F. magniplaga (Thiaucourt 1988, Fig. 17). Taking into consideration the wing pattern variability observed in Trinidad material (Fig. 7), I conclude that F. xenopithia should be treated as a synonym of F. magniplaga, as suggested by Thiaucourt.</p> <p>Within the Trinidad fauna, this variable species is quite distinctive and can be recognised by the mostly mottled green dorsal forewing, which may or may not have a white postdiscal band or a black streak from the base to the submarginal area, the hindwing is uniformly brown on the dorsal and ventral surfaces. In Trinidad, F. magniplaga is an occasional species found in forested areas, with most records from the north of the island. It has not been recorded from Tobago (Cock 2017).</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Arima Blanchisseuse Road, milestone 9.75, MVL: ♂ 21.ix.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Cumaca Road, 4.6 miles, MVL: 4♂, ♀ 21.x.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [2♂ MJWC, dissection 1013]; 2♂, ♀ UWIZM CABI.8200–8202]. Cuparo: ♂ S.M. Klages [NHMUK, type of F. xenopithia]. Curepe, MVL: ♂ 13.vi.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. North Coast Road, milestone 6, Carisal Trace, MVL: ♂ 5.iv.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Parrylands Oilfield, MVL: ♀ 13.xi.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. St.Ann’s: ♀ [NHMUK, as F. vecina = F. moresca]. Valencia Forest, MVL: 2♂ 31.vii.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [NHMUK; UWIZM CABI.8199]; ♀ 5.viii.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFD9FFF05FF7298EFEF6C8A7	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFD7FFFD5FF72A71FE2DCD53.text	9031F74FFFD7FFFD5FF72A71FE2DCD53.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Oligocentria brunnipennis Kaye 1923	<div><p>Oligocentria brunnipennis Kaye, 1923, stat. rev. (Notodontidae, Heterocampinae)</p> <p>(Figs. 9, 10)</p> <p>Oligocentria guianensis Thiaucourt, 2015, syn. nov.</p> <p>Kaye (1923) described and illustrated Rifargia brunnipennis from Trinidad (Palmiste, 25 December 1920, N. Lamont), and Kaye and Lamont (1927) repeated this record. I have examined the female type in NMS (Bland 2010).</p> <p>Schaus (1928) placed R. brunnipennis in synonymy with Oligocentria violascens (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855) (in Herrich-Schäffer 1850–1858), which has been followed by subsequent authors, including Schintlmeister (2013) and Becker (2014), the latter as Oligocentria brunnipennis Kaye, 1901 an incorrect combination and date. Schintlmeister (2013) recognised the genus Oligocentria (type species Notodonta violascens Herrich-Schäffer) as valid, but Becker considered Oligocentria to be a synonym of Ianassa Walker, 1855 (type species Ianassa lignicolor Walker, 1855). Thiaucourt (2015) treated Oligocentria as a valid genus in line with Schintlmeister (2013), although he took no formal taxonomic action to reverse the treatment of Becker (2014). Miller et al. (2021) concluded that both genera are valid, but that while Ianassa is essentially a North American genus, Oligocentria is Central and South American. Therefore, O. violascens, and its hitherto recognised synonyms including brunnipennis, are reinstated in Oligocentria (Thiaucourt 2015, Miller et al. 2021).</p> <p>Oligocentria brunnipennis (as here recognised) is an occasional species in Trinidad associated with suburban and disturbed areas (author’s unpublished data, Fig. 9). It has not been recorded from Tobago (Cock 2017). Sexual dimorphism is strong throughout Oligocentria, and it is not immediately obvious that the two sexes belong to the same species. Female Trinidad material was identified as O. brunnipennis by comparison with the type (NMS, ♀ TL Trinidad), and males associated by comparison with the NHMUK series of O. violascens, then considered a senior synonym, and elimination of other possibilities in Trinidad.</p> <p>Specimens from Trinidad are generally smaller than the Brazilian population of O. violascens in the NHMUK, and the female has a weaker violet sheen. Thiaucourt (2015) also noticed this size difference when he realised that the population of O. violascens in French Guiana differed from Brazilian O. violascens, particularly with regard to the A8 sternite and tergite of the male. Accordingly, Thiaucourt described Oligocentria guianensis Thiaucourt, 2015 as a new species, and illustrated the male terminalia of both species. I compared the male terminalia of a Trinidad specimen (Fig. 10) with those figured by Thiaucourt (2015), and found them to be identical. Accordingly, I conclude that O. brunnipennis Kaye, 1923, stat rev. is a valid species, of which O. guianensis Thiaucourt is a synonym.</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Curepe, at light: ♀ 7.ix.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Curepe, MVL: ♂ 7.viii.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]; ♂ 25.viii.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1532]; ♂ 9.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1535]; ♂ 23.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1534]; ♂ 6.i.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [NHMUK]; ♂ 23.i.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]; ♂ 23.ix.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1533]; ♂ 26.ix.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1536]; ♂ 25.xii.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, M.J.W. Cock dissection</p> <p>1024]; ♀ 14–19.ix.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Palmiste: ♀ 25.xii.1920 (type of brunnipennis Kaye) [N. Lamont] [NMS]; ♀ 1.ii.1922 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1833]; ♀ 12.i.1926 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1832]; ♀ 24.ix.1947 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1830]; ♀ 22.x.1947 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1831]. [Palmiste]: ♀ [N. Lamont] [NMS].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFD7FFFD5FF72A71FE2DCD53	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFD5FFFA5FF72E0FFF50CF77.text	9031F74FFFD5FFFA5FF72E0FFF50CF77.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Skaphita surinamensis Moschler 1878	<div><p>Skaphita surinamensis Möschler, 1878 (Notodontidae, Heterocampinae)</p> <p>(Figs 11–12, Table 1)</p> <p>Möschler (1878) described and illustrated Heterocampa surinamensis based on a single female from Paramaribo, Suriname. The holotype is in the MNB (Fig. 11), has been dissected by P. Thiaucourt. Becker (2014) transferred the taxon to Skaphita. V.O. Becker (pers. comm. 2020) identified my images of the male and its genitalia (Fig. 12). I note that the male genitalia of S. surinamensis are very different from those of all other species of Skaphita for which the genitalia have been documented (Table 1) particularly with regard to the A8 sternite and the spoon-shaped lobes each side of the aedeagus of S. surinamensis —probably part of the juxta firmly joined to the aedeagus (compare Fig. 12 with Fig. 17). In spite of the similarities in habitus, it seems likely that S. surinamensis does not belong in this genus, although the correct genus is not clear to me.</p> <p>1 Senckenberg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum, Frankfurt</p> <p>Kaye (1923) described and illustrated Boriza kalodonta Kaye, 1923 from Trinidad, the type (i.e. holotype) being given as from ‘ Trinidad, Palmiste, 30.x.11 (N. Lamont)’. This date is suspect since the earliest of the many documented specimens from Lamont’s collection is dated 1913, as Lamont didn’t start to label his specimens until that year (M.J.W. Cock unpublished). When Kaye and Lamont (1927) subsequently listed this species, they referred to specimens from ‘Palmiste, 31 Dec., 1920, San Fernando, 22 Feb., 1922 (N.L.)’ but do not mention the type data. The former specimen is in NHMUK, and is a male labelled and curated as the type of B. kalodonta. The latter is a male in NMS, pinned with a drawer label ‘ Boriza kalodonta Kaye’ in W.J. Kaye’s handwriting, and incorrectly labelled in typescript as the type. Kaye’s (1923) illustration is poor, with hardly any distinguishable markings apart from a submarginal dark spot on the dorsal forewing space 3 (M 3 –Cu 1); although it appears to be a male, it is otherwise undistinguished. It is therefore worthwhile to establish whether the NHMUK specimen is correctly labelled as the type. I suggest that it is the type and that the collection date, 30.XII.1920 (Fig. 11) at some stage prior to publication was transcribed as 20.X.11 as in the type description (Kaye 1923). The fact that Kaye and Lamont (1927) did not include the date given for the type suggests they either realised this or overlooked it. I conclude that it is safe to accept the NHMUK specimen as the holotype. Becker (2014) made B. kalodonta a synonym of S. surinamensis. Becker (2014) also made Disphragis sexnotata Kaye, 1923 and Heterocampa aroensis Schaus, 1901 synonyms of S. surinamensis, but these actions are reassessed under S. cubana (Grote, 1865) below.</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Palmiste: ♂ 22.xii.1920 (N. Lamont) [NHMUK, holotype of Boriza kalodonta Kaye]. S[an] F[ernan]do: ♂ 22.ii.1922 [N. Lamont] [NMS, labelled as Boriza kalodonta Kay; MJWC dissection 1062].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFD5FFFA5FF72E0FFF50CF77	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFD2FFF85FF72C07FC8DC9D3.text	9031F74FFFD2FFF85FF72C07FC8DC9D3.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Skaphita cubana Grote 1865	<div><p>Skaphita cubana Grote, 1865 (Notodontidae, Heterocampinae)</p> <p>(Figs. 13–14, Table 1)</p> <p>Heterocampa aroensis Schaus, 1901, syn. nov.</p> <p>Disphragis sexnotata Kaye, 1925, syn. nov.</p> <p>Heterocampa cubana Grote, 1865 was described from Cuba, based on a male and two females, one of the females being illustrated (Grote 1865). The types were stated to be in ‘Coll. Ent. Soc. Philad.’ and so are expected to be in The Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, but as Schintlmeister (2013) reports, they are not in the on-line database of the Entomology Type Collection (http://clade.ansp.org/entomology/search.php). Schintlmeister (2013) maintained this species in the genus Heterocampa, but Becker (2014) placed it in Skaphita.</p> <p>Heterocampa daona Druce, 1894 was described from an unspecified number of specimens of unspecified sex from Orizaba, Mexico. Schintlmeister (2013) recognised a single male specimen now in NHMUK as the holotype. It had not been dissected when I examined it in 1993. Becker (2014) placed this taxon in Skaphita as a synonym of S. cubana.</p> <p>Schaus (1901) described Heterocampa aroensis from an unspecified number of males and females from Aroa, [Bolivar], Venezuela. Schintlmeister (2016) designated a lectotype male in USNM and illustrated it and its genitalia (USNM slide 46443) (also shown in USNM (2020)). Becker (2014) placed this taxon as a synonym of Skaphita surinamensis, but in doing so, did not examine the genitalia (V.O. Becker pers. comm. 2020).</p> <p>Heterocampa androdora Dyar, 1910 was described from six females from Mexico (Dyar 1910), noting the similarity to, and possible conspecificity with, S. cubana and S. aroensis. The first listed type from Misatlanta was selected as lectotype and illustrated by Schintlmeister (2016). It has not been dissected (Schintlmeister 2016). Schaus (1928) placed S. androdora as a synonym of S. daona (which he placed in Disphragis), and this was followed by subsequent authors until Becker (2014) placed both S. daona and S. androdora as synonyms of S. cubana.</p> <p>Comparison of the male lectotype of S. aroensis and its terminalia with S. surinamensis (Fig. 12) and S. cubana, as illustrated by Torre y Callejas and Dalmau (1959) and Thiaucourt (2003) reveals that the terminalia of S. aroensis show no similarity to those of S. surinamensis, but rather S. aroensis (Schaus, 1901) is a synonym of S. cubana (Grote, 1865). DNA barcode sequences in BOLD offer some support for this conclusion. BIN BOLD:AAA7792 (dx.doi.org/10.5883/BOLD:AAA7792) currently includes 135 public sequences of specimens currently identified as Cecrita daona (114), Heterocampa daona (6), Heterocampa androdora (5), Heterocampa cubana (3), Disphragis cubana (1), D. clitiusa Schaus, 1928 (a synonym of S. elongata (Druce, 1906) according to Becker (2014)) (1), and S. media Thiaucourt, 1995 (1), as well as unidentified specimens. Of the names used in this BIN, cubana is the oldest, offering support to Becker’s (2014) treatment. The material is from USA (Florida), Mexico, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, French Guiana, Brazil (Para), Paraguay, and Argentina, indicating a single widespread species, i.e. S. cubana. Barcodes of material from Cuba would be useful to confirm this. However, while some of this material is similar to what I treat here as S. cubana (Fig. 13), some (e.g. the sample from Trinidad and Tobago) looks more like S. media, and this merits further investigation.</p> <p>Kaye (1925) described and illustrated Disphragis sexnotata Kaye, 1925 from Trinidad, stating that the type (i.e. holotype) was from ‘ Trinidad, Fyzabad. (R.M. Farmborough.)’ and was in OUNHM (‘Mus. Oxford’). Kaye (1925) did not state the sex of the holotype, but his illustration has the antennae pectinate in the basal half indicating a male. Kaye and Lamont (1927) repeated this information, except they omit the location of the type. Kaye has described other species from OUNHM—see, for example, the discussion regarding Podalia farmbri (Kaye, 1925) (Megalopygidae) in Cock (2017) —but key specimens of several species have not been located in OUNHM (or in NHMUK, NMS or MGCLB). I have looked in OUNHM for the type of D. sexnotata and failed to find it. It might still be overlooked amongst the unsorted accessions (I did see at least one return of identified Trinidad specimens amongst this material). However, I went through the OUNHM accessions, finding many Trinidad specimens, including some but not all specimens that Kaye referred to, but none of his types. At this time, the type of S. sexnotata is presumed missing and probably lost, which leaves us with only Kaye’s illustration (Kaye 1925, plate XLV.10). Like the illustration of S. kalodonta (above under S. surinamensis) this is of poor quality, and it is not an obvious match to any species that I have seen from Trinidad. The only significant distinguishing mark is the large irregular postdiscal spot. Becker (2014) placed S. sexnotata as a synonym of S. surinamensis. However, on balance, it seems more likely that this taxon is a synonym of S. cubana, as follows. Kaye (1925) gives the expanse (‘Exp.’) as 46 mm, but it is not clear whether this represents wing tip to wing tip on a set specimen, or wing tip to mid-thorax to wing tip. However, in Kaye’s (1925) plate, the figure measures 45 mm wing tip to wing tip, so it can be assumed that this is what Kaye meant by expanse. Wing tip to wing tip, S. surinamensis measure 31 mm for the male (NMS specimen) and 44 mm for the female (holotype), while S. cubana from Trinidad (in MJWC) measures 44 mm for the male and 47–53 mm for the female. Kaye’s figure of S. sexnotata is too large to be a male S. surinamensis, although comparable in size to the female holotype of S. surinamensis and female S. cubana. The dorsal hindwings of Kaye’s figure are pale, shaded darker at the margins, thus resembling the female of S. cubana, rather than the female of S. surinamensis or either male (Figs. 11, 13). Furthermore, there is a worn, and perhaps faded or discoloured, female specimen in the NHMUK labelled as from Trinidad by W.J. Kaye, which resembles Kaye’s figure of the type (apart from the antennae). This resemblance gives a strong indication of the identity of Kaye’s D. sexnotata. The specimen in question is a female S. cubana (curated as Disphragis daona when I examined it in 1999). I conclude that S. sexnotata should be removed from the synonymy of S. surinamensis and is a synonym of S. cubana.</p> <p>Trinidad material examined. Brigand Hill, lighthouse security MVL lights: ♀ 17.i.2004 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Cumaca Road, 4.6 miles, MVL: ♀ 18.vii.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1542]. Curepe, at light: ♂ 8.i.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Curepe, BLT: ♀ viii.1982 (F.D. Bennett) [UWIZM CABI.1545]. Curepe, MVL: ♂ 15.vii.1967 [UWIZM CABI.1831]; ♂ 27.viii.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1808]; ♀ 6.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]; ♀ 18.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]; ♂ 21.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1817]; ♂ 24.xi.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1816]; ♂ 29.xii.1978 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1809]; ♂ 8.v.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [NHMUK]; ♂ 14.ix.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1807]; ♂ 14.x.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1818]; ♂ 17.x.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1813]; ♀ 15.x.1979 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1543]; ♂ 25.xii.1979 (M.J.W. Cock)[UWIZM CABI.1810]; ♂ 13.i.1980 (M.J.W. Cock)[UWIZM CABI.1811]; ♂ 18.i.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, dissection 1005]; ♂ 27.i.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1812]; ♂ 8– 14.xii.1981 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC, dissection 1002]; ♂, ♀ 11–20.i.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [♀ MJWC; ♂ UWIZM CABI.1815]; ♂ 21–31.i.1982 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1814]. Palmiste: ♀ 29.i.1919 [N. Lamont] [NMS]; ♂ 30.xii.1920 (N. Lamont) [NHMUK, labelled ‘ Boriza kalodonta Kaye’ in Kaye’s writing]; ♀ 27.iii.1922 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1802]; ♀ 22.x.1947 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1801]; ♀ 21.vii.1948 [N. Lamont] [UWIZM.2013.13.1803]. Point Gourde, MVL: ♀ 16.v.1999 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.8217]. St Benedict’s, Pax Guest House, at light: ♀ 2.x.1994 (M.J.W. Cock) [MJWC]. Valencia Forest, MVL: ♀ iv.1980 (M.J.W. Cock) [UWIZM CABI.1544]. Trinidad: ♀ (W.J. Kaye) [NHMUK].</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFD2FFF85FF72C07FC8DC9D3	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
9031F74FFFD0FFE55FF72A8FFD08C85F.text	9031F74FFFD0FFE55FF72A8FFD08C85F.taxon	http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text	http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/SPMInfoItems#GeneralDescription	text/html	en	Skaphita indirae Cock. In MJWC 2021	<div><p>Skaphita indirae sp. nov. (Notodontidae, Heterocampinae)</p> <p>urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 73B224D5-F8B6-4DAE-8C83-502EF525670F</p> <p>(Figs. 15–17).</p> <p>Type material. Holotype ♂: TRINIDAD, W.I., Caroni Swamp, Blue River, fluorescent light, 20.v.1982, I. Omah- Maharaj / M.J.W. Cock Genitalia 1044 / Holotype Skaphita indirae Cock. In MJWC, to be deposited in NHMUK.</p> <p>Diagnosis. This is clearly a species of Skaphita based on the forewing markings and the terminalia. I have examined all known species of Skaphita based on their types or authoritative images and in many cases their terminalia (Table 1). All are larger than S. indirae (32 mm wingspan); the smallest type measurement is 34 mm for the male lectotype of S. semilunata (Schintlmeister 2016) and 35.6 mm (1.4 inch) for the male S. cubana, as stated by Grote (1865). None closely resemble S. indirae, although precise diagnostic details are difficult to specify, especially given the rubbed condition of the type, and the less-than-ideal quality of some of the illustrations of other species. The terminalia can be compared with those of the following species of Skaphita: S. bruni Thiaucourt, 2003, S. cubana, S. elongata Druce, 1906, S. media, S. meridionalis Draudt, 1933 (in Draudt 1932 –1934), S. salona Druce, 1894, and S. surinamensis (sources in Table 1). The terminalia of S. multilineata Dognin, 1905, S. peruviensis Dognin, 1914, and S. semilunata Schaus, 1901 have not been documented (Table 1), but can be eliminated on the basis of their habitus. As noted above, the male genitalia of S. surinamensis are sufficiently different from those of other Skaphita spp. to suggest that they are not congeneric. Compared to S. indirae, the central posterior margin of the A8 sternite is more pointed in all these species except S. meridionalis, which is less conical in shape than S. indirae, and close to parallel-sided (Thiaucourt 1995); this feature is readily examined in situ (Fig. 17 K) by brushing and scraping scales from the ventral apex of the abdomen. It is difficult to compare the uncus and associated projections, as the published images only show the ventral view from microscope slides. However, the long basal projection of the uncus clearly has an anteriorly directed portion in S. bruni, S. cubana, and S. salona, which is not seen in S. indirae. The inner tooth of the basal projection of the dorsal valve is broad and strongly toothed, and the outer tooth sharply pointed in S. bruni and S. cubana; the projection is small and not divided in S. salona; and the outer projection is short and broad in S. meridionalis and S. surinamensis; in comparison, the inner section is a small tooth in S. indirae and the outer tooth is long and truncate. The details of the apex of the aedeagus are not clearly enough illustrated to compare with those of S. indirae (Fig. 17), but they are expected to include useful diagnostic features.</p> <p>Description. Male. Figs. 15–17; wingspan 32 mm, forewing length 15 mm (both estimated to allow for abrasion of the forewing apex). Head. Grey-brown, the frons browner (Fig. 15). Antennae brown, grey-brown for basal segments; strongly bipectinate for basal two-thirds. Remains of a hair tuft on the scape, but it is not clear how much this has abraded. Thorax. Dorsally grey-brown, a dark transverse line on posterior margin. Ventrally pale grey-brown; a fluffy hair tuft subventrally on anterior margin (Fig. 15). Abdomen. Brown-grey dorsally; greybrown ventrally. Dorsal forewing. Markings somewhat abraded, but generally similar to those of other Skaphita spp. Ground colour grey-brown. The clearest features (Fig. 16) are the darker base, partially delineated by dark line from base of wing centrally to edge of darker base, where it makes a semi-circle to dorsum; an arc at distal end of the cell; an irregular line from the lower end of the arc to the dorsum just distal of dark line delineating part of the basal darker area; a more diffuse dark line from the lower end of arc to costa about midway between basal darker area and the costal end of the arc; a dark double line from costal end of the arc, curving towards the apex; a dark submarginal mark in space 3 (M 3 –Cu 1). Veins 4–6 (M 3 –M 1) dark, the last extending costal end of dark arc. An interrupted dark marginal line evident in tornal half of margin, but due to abrasion, it is not clear how far it extends to apex of margin. Fringe with dark spots at end of veins 1 (2A) and 2 (Cu 1). Dorsal hindwing. Translucent white, suffused with brown on costa, dorsum and weakly on margin; a dark suffusion around end of vein 1 (2A), extending to end of vein 2 (Cu 2); a narrow, dark marginal line from middle of space 1B (Cu 2 –2A) to end of vein 3 (Cu 1). Fringe pale, dark around the end of vein1 (2A), at the end of vein 2 (Cu 1) and at the end of vein 7 (Rs). Ventral forewing. Brown, darker on costa and margin; veins 2–6 (Cu 2 –M 2) slightly darkened. Fringe paler brown, dark at end of veins 1 and 2 (2A and Cu 2). Ventral hindwing. As dorsal hindwing. Terminalia (Fig. 17). Sternite A8 typical of Skaphita spp. with central part of the posterior margin conical, apex rounded; lateral to it a shorter sclerotised projection, and ventral to it a pair of deep sclerotised intrusions (Fig 17J). Tergite A8 weakly divided by membranous area middorsum, the posterior margin on each side rounded. Genitalia conspicuously flattened dorso-ventrally (Fig 17C) and symmetrical apart from apex of aedeagus. Uncus downcurved, robust, and bluntly pointed; at its base a conspicuous blunt projection of comparable length, directed downwards and then posteriorly and downwards; just posterior to this a short, rounded projection. Valve long, thin, strap-like with the distal end dilated and flattened at apex; at basal part of the dorsal side a conspicuous, irregular projection directly initially inwards a short distance to a sharp angle and then posteriorly in a longer section, sharply truncate at apex. Aedeagus 3.2 mm long and relatively narrow, slightly undulate in dorso-ventral plane; apex dilated, laterally and ventrally, with a sharp corner on the left side, and a toothed corner on the right side; an elongate toothed structure, widened and rounded on one side distally (as presented) is part of vesica. Female. Unknown.</p> <p>Distribution. Currently only known from the holotype from Caroni Swamp, Trinidad, Trinidad and Tobago.</p> <p>Etymology. The specific name, indirae, is in recognition of Dr Indira Omah-Maharaj of the University of the West Indies, who collected the holotype specimen. It is a non-classical name, treated as a singular feminine noun in the genitive case (so as to avoid search-engine confusion with ‘indira’), and so will not show gender agreement.</p> <p>Remarks. The type locality, Caroni Swamp, is the largest mangrove wetland in Trinidad, and is an important eco-tourism site, protected under the Ramsar Convention. The actual collection locality was close to where the Caroni Swamp Visitor Centre now stands (10.605N, 61.434W), and at the time the dominant vegetation would have been red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle, Rhizophoraceae) (I. Omah-Maharaj pers. comm. 2021). The absence of other records from Trinidad suggests that it is possible that this species is associated with mangrove swamps, which have been hardly sampled for moths in Trinidad.</p> </div>	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/9031F74FFFD0FFE55FF72A8FFD08C85F	Public Domain	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.		MagnoliaPress via Plazi	Cock, Matthew J. W.	Cock, Matthew J. W. (2021): A new species and taxonomic changes relating to the Notodontidae (Lepidoptera) of Trinidad, West Indies. Zootaxa 5020 (2): 307-327, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5020.2.4
