Telegonus parmenides ( Stoll, 1781 )

Zhang, Jing, Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina & Grishin, Nick V., 2025, Advancing butterfly systematics through genomic analysis, The Taxonomic Report of the International Lepidoptera Survey 12 (5), pp. 1-201 : 88-89

Telegonus parmenides ( Stoll, 1781) , Telegonus bifascia siges Mabille, 1903 , Telegonus crana (Evans, 1952) , Telegonus cyprus (Evans, 1952) , and Telegonus cyprus crilla (Evans, 1952) are taxa distinct from Telegonus creteus (Cramer, 1780)

Similarly to Papilio parmenides Stoll, 1781 (type locality not stated in the original description, likely in Suriname) analyzed above, falling short of the neotype designation for Papilio creteus Cramer, 1780 (type locality in Suriname) and pending further studies, we tentatively identify P. creteus consistently with Steinhauser (unpublished, specimens identified by Steinhauser as P. creteus sequenced from several collections). Male genitalia of this species are shown in Fig. 68a–j and are characterized by a straight or bisinuate costa of the valva formed by an expanded anteriad and stronger sclerotized ampulla, and a distally more rounded and not strongly elongated harpe with a relatively straight dorsodistal margin without a hump in the middle. This is the species Evans (1952) misidentified as “ Astraptes chiriquensis oenander ” (in part, see below).

Assuming that our identification of P. creteus is correct, genomic analysis reveals that P. parmenides and the following taxa treated by Evans (1952) as subspecies of “ Astraptes creteus ”, currently in the genus Telegonus Hübner, [1819] (type species Papilio talus Cramer, 1777 ), i.e., Telegonus siges Mabille, 1903 (type locality in Brazil), Astraptes creteus crana Evans, 1952 (type locality Guatemala: San Gerónimo), and Astraptes creteus cyprus Evans, 1952 (type locality in Bolivia) are genetically differentiated from each other at the species level and are placed in different clades of the phylogenetic trees ( Fig. 61). They are also distinct from other taxa, and among them, only T. siges is rather closely related to another named species, Telegonus bifascia ( Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) (type locality in Tropical America to USA, likely Southeast Brazil as evidenced by our genomic sequencing) ( Fig. 61) that Evans (1952) misidentified (see previous section): COI barcode difference of 0.8% (5 bp). Telegonus bifascia and T. siges do not separate into distinct clades in our nuclear genome trees, do not strongly differ genetically with Fst / Gmin of 0.06/0.05, and, pending further studies, the latter taxon may be regarded as a subspecies of the former due to some genetic differentiation between them ( Fig. 61). Therefore, we propose to treat Telegonus parmenides (Stoll, 1781), stat. rest., Telegonus bifascia siges Mabille, 1903,

comb. nov., Telegonus crana (Evans, 1952) , stat. nov., and Telegonus cyprus (Evans, 1952) , stat. nov. as taxa distinct from Telegonus creteus (Cramer, 1780) .

We also find that Astraptes creteus crilla Evans, 1952 (type locality Ecuador: Zamora) is in a different clade from Telegonus creteus (Cramer, 1780) and instead is closely related to Telegonus cyprus (Evans, 1952) , stat. nov. ( Fig. 61). The two names A. creteus cyprus and A. creteus crilla were proposed at the same rank in the same work issued on the same date (Evans 1952). As the first reviser, we gave precedence to A. creteus cyprus above, and, therefore, conservatively place A. creteus crilla as its subspecies, Telegonus cyprus crilla (Evans, 1952) , comb. nov., pending further studies of additional specimens. Male genitalia of the T. cyprus crilla specimen we sequenced are shown in Fig. 63k, l , and are typical for the group in having a concave costa of the valva, a dorsally protruding ampulla separated from the dorsal process of the harpe by a narrow gap, and a distally pointed harpe with a concave dorsoposterior margin.

Figures

Fig. 68. Male genitalia of Telegonus (Rhabdoides) non-type specimens [MGCL]: a–j) T. creteus: a–e) NVG-22078G05 Venezuela, Amazonas, Samariapo, Upper Orinoco, upstream from Maipures Rapids, 95–115 m, 5-Sep-1946, Rene Lichy leg., vial SRS-1799 and f–j) NVG-22078G04 Brazil, Pará, Fazenda Velna nr. Belém, 17-Nov-1973, C. Callaghan leg., vial SRS-853 and k–s) T. parmenides: k–p) NVG-24064B01 French Guiana, Maroni River, Oct-Nov-1903, ex coll. Le Moult, vial SRS-1786 and q–s) NVG-23063F08 Brazil, Amazonas, Manaus, km 26 AM-010, Reserva Ducke, GPS −2.9167, −59.9833, 13-Dec-1993, J. Bolling Sullivan & Roger W. Hutchings leg., vial SRS-4607 in different views: a, c–f, h–k, n–p, r) left lateral; b, g, l, s) dorsal; q) right lateral; and m) ventral: q–s) complete genital capsule and a, b, f, g, k–m) genitalia with c, h, n) aedeagus and d, i, o) right and e, j, p) left valvae detached and shown separately. Vesica is everted in c), cornuti pointing up at uncus in a). Beige arrows connect different views or parts of the same genitalia.

Fig. 63. Male genitalia of Telegonus (Rhabdoides) holotypes (unless indicated), data in text or below: a–b) T. alector ecuadoricus ssp. n. NVG-19071H10; c–d) T. panavenus sp. n. paratype NVG-14111B09; e–f) T. pacificus sp. n. NVG- 14111C02; g–h) T. amazonicus sp. n. NVG-14111C03; i–j) T. pallidus sp. n. NVG-14111D04; k–l) T. cyprus crilla comb. nov. specimen NVG-14111D07 from Peru, Huanuco, Tingo Maria, 800 m, May-Jun-1994 [USNM]; m–o) T. subfuscus sp. n. NVG-22078G12 in different views: a, d, e, h, i, l, o) left lateral; b, c, f, g, j, k, n) dorsal; m) right lateral. The complete genital capsule is shown. Beige arrows connect different views of the same genitalia.