Entheus matho Godman & Salvin, 1879

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 : 53-55

Lectotype designation for Entheus matho Godman & Salvin, 1879

Entheus matho Godman & Salvin, 1879 was described on the basis of several specimens from Guatemala: Choctum (a small settlement Choctun in Alta

Verapaz Department approx. GPS 15.67, −90.42

according to Selander and Vaurie (1962), one

specimen from this locality, as deduced from the

text in Godman and Salvin (1894)) and Nicaragua:

Chontales (several specimens) (Godman and

Salvin 1879). A specimen from Guatemala: Alta

Verapaz, Senahú (approx. GPS 15.43, −89.90

according to Selander and Vaurie (1962)) was

illustrated by Godman and Salvin (1894) after the

original description of E. matho , but it is not a

syntype, because it is not from the type locality.

Notably, both localities in Guatemala (Senahú and

Choctum) are mentioned in Godman and Salvin

(1894), but only one (Choctum) bears a superscript

‘1’ after the authors’ names, referencing the

original description (as the locality in Nicaragua Fig. 43. Male genitalia of Entheus : a–c) E. matho lectotype minislide 108: a) genitalia with left valva detached; b) left valva, after the collector’s name). This mention of the flipped (left-right inverted to facilitate comparison), interior two Guatemalan localities and a particular way of view; c) illustration: fig. 29 on pl. 81 from Godman & Salvin referencing by the superscript (Senahú is not ((1894 1989));. d a,) b E). guato © The sp Trustees. n. right of valva the, Natural fig. 67 from History Steinhauser Museum referring to the original description) supports the London and are made available under Creative Commons conclusion that the specimen from Senahú is not a License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

syntype. Notably, this specimen is not conspecific with most other specimens in the type series, which has led to confusion in the literature. For instance, Steinhauser (1989) misidentified “ matho ” and attributed this name to a species represented by this non-syntypic male from Senahú and illustrated in Godman & also illustrated the genitalia (reproduced here as Fig. 43c) of a syntype (Fig. 43a, b), and male genitalia can be used to identify E. matho , differing from other species by a wider harpe with a strongly convex ventral margin.

To stabilize nomenclature and define the name E. matho objectively in the light of confusion with the published misidentified illustration of its spread male that is not a syntype, N.V.G. hereby designates a syntype in the BMNH collection, a male with genitalia illustrated by Godman and Salvin (1894), that bears the following four rectangular printed labels and a genitalia minislide No. 108 pinned together with labels: [Chontales, | Nicaragua. | T. Belt.], [B.C.A.Lep.Rhop. | Entheus | matho, | G.&S.], [Godman-Salvin | Coll. 1912.—23.], [BMNH(E) #1054270] as the lectotype of Entheus matho Godman & Salvin, 1879 . The lectotype has scales completely removed from its left wings to reveal venation and has the right forewing tornus chipped away. Images of this specimen are shown on the Butterflies of America website ( Warren et al. 2024). The type locality of E. matho becomes Nicaragua: Chontales. As a result, the species that Steinhauser (1989) misidentified as “ matho ” does not have a name and is new, described below.