Eudamus hopfferi Plötz, 1881

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 : 73-78

Lectotype designation for Eudamus hopfferi Plötz, 1881

Eudamus hopfferi Plötz, 1881 was described from an unstated number of specimens that also included specimen(s) considered by Herrich-Schäffer (1869) to be a variation of Eudamus alector C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867 (type locality Colombia: Bogota) (now Telegonus alector alector , see below) with the white forewing band reduced to a smear, and the locality for these specimens was given as “Süd-America” (South America) ( Plötz 1881). The type specimens of E. hopfferi labeled as such are unknown. Our search in the MFNB collection for Herrich-Schäffer specimens (Herrich-Schäffer Hesperiidae are mostly in MFNB) matching the description was unsuccessful. However, inspecting an unpublished manuscript by Plötz in ZSMC dated 1876, which is an earlier version of his published Hesperiidae keys, we found additional information about E. hopfferi ( Fig. 60c): “Mus. Berol. 4969”, which is a reference to a specimen lot in MFNB with the number 4969. Plötz identified one (or more) specimen(s) in this lot as E. hopfferi , and therefore, such specimens (when agreeing with the original description) should be considered syntypes. While for many species described by Plötz, these specimen numbers were also listed in the published version of the keys, for E. hopfferi , the MFNB number was not given.

The catalog of historical MFNB collections handwritten by the Entomology curator Carl Heinrich Hopffer (died in 1876, before the description of E. hopfferi ) contained an entry for the lot 4969 ( Fig. 60d) showing that it was a single specimen collected by Deppe in Mexico and giving the name for it as “ Hesperia phanaeus N.” Ferdinand Deppe collected in Mexico in 1824–1829 ( Stresemann 1954), and this specimen should have been collected then. The name “phanaeus ” was not published, and “N.” could be an abbreviation for the Latin “Nova ” [new] or “Nobis” [us], or German “Neue”, indicating that the name of the species was new (Zhang et al. 2023e). Hopffer labeled many Hesperiidae specimens in MFNB that he could not identify with such new names, but most of his names remained unpublished. Such species were subsequently described by other authors, who sometimes kept or modified Hopffer’s names, or proposed unrelated ones.

We found the specimen with the number 4969 in MFNB, shown in Fig. 60a with its labels. The specimen agrees well with the original description of E. hopfferi that we assembled from Plötz’s key and translate as: “Forewing without a central band on the upper surface. Hindwing not marked with white above. The underside of the forewing is broadly white towards the inner margin and tornus. Above, the body and wing bases are covered with shiny blue and green overscaling. On the underside, the costal margin of the forewing nearly to the apex is reddish-white gray, the white spot [by the tornus] extends very narrowly through the middle cell to the costal margin. Hindwing white at the base by costal margin, otherwise brown with 2 darker crossbands” ( Plötz 1881). Moreover, the published illustration of Telegonus hopfferi in Draudt (1921–1924), reproduced here as Fig. 60b, may be a copy of Plötz’s unpublished (and lost) drawing t[afel]. 88 referenced in the original description and showing syntype (s) of E. hopfferi . Many Hesperiidae illustrations in Draudt (1921–1924), especially of obscure and recently described species, were not drawn from specimens, but from their illustrations in other sources, such as Plötz’s unpublished drawings. The illustration and the specimen are similar to each other, not only in the details of wing patterns, but also in the way the specimen was spread. This specimen No. 4969 may be the specimen drawn by Plötz, whose drawing was copied in Draudt (1921–1924).

As a result of these investigations, we conclude that the specimen No. 4969 is a syntype of E. hopfferi . Its appearance and associated data agree with the original description, unpublished manuscript by the original author, and published early illustrations of this taxon. Moreover, because Plötz did not wish to use the name “phanaeus ,” likely coined by Hopffer for this new species, it seemed fitting to propose a name honoring Hopffer, who passed away in 1876. That is the year dated on Plötz’s manuscript with the name hopfferi , which was absent from his earlier manuscript (1870, also in ZSMC) that was a list of Hesperiidae species (including unpublished ones) known to Plötz at the time. Finally, the taxonomic identity of this syntype is in agreement with the current and prior use of this name in nearly all primary literature sources (Draudt 1922; Evans 1952; Mielke 2005) because Mexican populations, where this syntype is from, have been associated with this name.

positions, and c) the mitochondrial genome. Ultrafast bootstrap ( Minh et al. 2013) values are shown at nodes. Primary and secondary type specimens are labeled in red and blue, respectively. Branches of new taxa proposed in this work are shown in red and those with taxonomic changes, such as subspecies-to-species or synonym-to-species status or transfer of a subspecies between species (changes indicated in brackets) are shown in blue.

To define the taxonomic identity of the name E. hopfferi objectively, N.V.G. hereby designates a syntype in the MFNB collection illustrated in Fig. 60a, a male with the following three labels (2nd handwritten and green, others printed and white): [4969], [Phanaeus | N. | Mexico Deppe], and [DNA sample ID: | NVG-22068G07 | c/o Nick V. Grishin ] as the lectotype of Eudamus hopfferi Plötz, 1881 . The lectotype is missing the tornus of the right hindwing. The COI barcode sequence of the lectotype, sample NVG-22068G07, GenBank PV550009, 658 base pairs, is: AACTTTATATTTTATTTTTGGAATTTGAGCAGGATTAATTGGAACTTCTTTAAGATTACTTATTCGAACTGAATTAGGAACTCCTGGATCTTTAATTGGAGATGATCAAATTTATAATACT ATTGTAACAGCTCACGCATTTATTATAATTTTTTTTATAGTTATACCTATTATAATTGGAGGATTTGGAAATTGATTAGTTCCATTAATAATAGGAGCCCCTGATATAGCTTTCCCCCGTA TAAATAATATAAGATTTTGACTTTTACCTCCATCATTAACTTTATTAATTTCAAGAAGAATTGTAGAAAATGGTGCTGGGACAGGATGAACAGTTTATCCCCCTCTTTCATCTAATATTGC CCATCAAGGAGCATCTGTTGACTTAGCAATTTTTTCTTTACATTTAGCTGGTATTTCTTCTATTCTTGGAGCTATTAATTTTATCACAACAATTATTAATATACGAATTAATAGTTTATCT TTTGATCAAATACCTTTATTTGTTTGAGCTGTAGGAATTACAGCATTATTATTATTACTTTCTTTACCAGTTTTAGCAGGAGCTATTACTATATTATTAACTGATCGAAATTTAAATACTT CATTTTTTGATCCAGCTGGAGGAGGAGATCCAATTTTATACCAACACTTATTT

As a result of the lectotype designation, the type locality of Eudamus hopfferi becomes Mexico, possibly in south-central or southern Mexico (states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca, and around, but not more eastern territories, such as Veracruz), judging from Deppe’s travels ( Stresemann 1954) and genomic sequence comparison that also confirms Thracides uridon Dyar, 1912 (type locality in Mexico: Guerrero, holotype sequenced as NVG-15101C12) as a junior subjective synonym of E. hopfferi ( Fig. 61).

Finally, it remains unclear why Plötz gave the locality of E. hopfferi as South America even in the original manuscript that listed the Mexican specimen by its number 4969 ( Fig. 60c). It could have been that the locality referred to Herrich-Schäffer specimen(s)—the locality is given in the same line with the reference to them ( Plötz 1881), some other specimen(s) Plötz inspected, or it may be an error.