Samia canningi (Hutton, 1860)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/10.37828/em.2025.84.10 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:18433F0C-7212-45F1-9146-16697699EE36 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AB0FED07-3D35-FFAC-FF6A-F971FB87FBAF |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Samia canningi (Hutton, 1860) |
status |
|
Samia canningi (Hutton, 1860) View in CoL
Figs 4A–D View Figure 4 , 17G–H View Figure 17
Material examined. LAOS: Oudomsay Province, Oudomsay city, tropical forest, 20°38'52"N, 101°58'59"E, 07.05.2016, V. Spitsyn leg. – 1♂ GoogleMaps ; Luang Namtha Province, Muang Long town , tropical forest, 20°57'29"N, 100°49'41"E, 10– 21.05.2016, V. Spitsyn leg. – 1♀ GoogleMaps ; Phongsaly Province, Yot Ou village , mountain tropical forest, 22°08'45"N, 101°48'13"E, 25– 28.07.2024, V. Spitsyn & E. Spitsyna leg. – 1♂, 8♀ GoogleMaps ; Phongsaly Province, Boun Neua town , mountain tropical forest, 21°37'23"N, 101°55'36"E, 02– 05.08.2024, V. Spitsyn & E. Spitsyna leg. – 2♂ GoogleMaps ; Phongsaly Province, Phongsaly town, mountain tropical forest, 21°41'34"N, 102°06'19"E, 06– 09.08.2024, V. Spitsyn & E. Spitsyna leg. – 1♂ GoogleMaps ; the same locality and collectors, 29.07– 02.08.2024 – 5♂, 5♀ GoogleMaps ; Phongsaly Province, Boun Neua town , mountain tropical forest, 21°39'59"N, 101°52'58"E, 29.07.2024, V. Spitsyn & E. Spitsyna leg. – 1♀ GoogleMaps .
Distribution in Laos. Luang Prabang Province ( Brosch et al. 1999; Racheli et al. 2008), Boli Kham Xai Province ( Racheli et al. 2008), Phongsaly Province, Luang Namtha Province, and Oudomsay Province (this study).
Reference COI barcode sequences. GenBank acc. no. PV069526, PV069527, PV069557– PV069559, PV069602.
Remarks. (1) The first records from Phongsaly, Luang Namtha, and Oudomsay provinces. (2) According to the ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, the species name of Samia canningi (Hutton, 1860) is considered as valid name and must be used when referring to the wild form of Samia ricini (Jones, 1791) (Opinion 2376 (Case 3638) 2016). However, the comparison of the COI sequences revealed no genetic differences between the wild ( S. canningi ) and the domestic forms ( S. ricini ). (3) In Kishida et al.’s work (2020) the specimen illustration of which was captioned as “ Samia canningi ” clearly belongs to another species (probably, Samia beekei Paukstadt & Paukstadt, 2012 ). Hence, the species of the genus Samia Hübner, [1819] were incorrectly identified in the aforementioned work. (4) The COI sequences of S. canningi from Laos obtained in the present study belong to two groups of haplotypes which differ from each other by 10 nucleotide substitutions (1.5%). The first group of haplotypes is widely distributed from India to China and Thailand, whereas the second one — in Vietnam and northern Laos (Phongsaly Province). The taxonomic status of the latter is unclear and requires further studies. If this lineage has a restricted range including Vietnam and northern Laos and does not sympatrically occur with the other, it should be considered as a separate subspecies. The second genetic lineage of S. canningi shows 0.6% COI divergence from Samia fulva Jordan, 1911 from the Andaman Islands ( Samia lunula fulva in the original combination; afterwards raised to the species rank by Mohanraj et al. (1998)). Due to this reason, here we treat the Andamanese taxon in the rank of subspecies — Samia canningi fulva Jordan, 1911 comb. nov. & stat. rev.
V |
Royal British Columbia Museum - Herbarium |
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |