diff --git a/data/03/A7/0E/03A70E44FFFB0508FF5466B05FCDFC9E.xml b/data/03/A7/0E/03A70E44FFFB0508FF5466B05FCDFC9E.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..2a9fa5ff6c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/03/A7/0E/03A70E44FFFB0508FF5466B05FCDFC9E.xml @@ -0,0 +1,680 @@ + + + +A new species of Diatraea Guilding, 1828, feeding on sugarcane from Nayarit, Mexico, and a lectotype designation for Diatraea magnifactella Dyar, 1911 (Lepidoptera, Crambidae, Crambinae) + + + +Author + +Robles-Pérez, Rafael +Estudiante de Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Biológico Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, Km 9 carretera Tepic-Compostela. C. P. 63780, Xalisco, Nayarit, México + + + +Author + +Solis, M. Alma +Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville Agriculture Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, c / o National Museum Natural History, MRC 168, Smithsonian Institution, P. O. Box 37012, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America, 20013 - 7012 + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2024 + +2024-11-06 + + +5536 + + +4 + + +569 +580 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5536.4.4 + +journal article +10.11646/zootaxa.5536.4.4 +1175-5326 +14239199 +13EE3DDD-F5B8-488F-8FF9-AEC1B6D6F015 + + + + + + + +Diatraea nayaritella +Robles & Solis + +, +sp. nov. + + + + + +urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: +6088DC4E-AF9C-431A-AC9F-A2464BBF5496 + + + + + +( +Figs. 5–6 +, +10–13 +) + + + + +Type material +. + + +Holotype + +: +♂ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +, +Santa María del Oro +municipio, +San Leonel +ejido, + +07/02/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.353958, +Long. +104.693823, #550, +Collector Rafael Robles-Pérez +, USNMENT01894344. +The +holotype is deposited in the +NMNH + +. + + +Allotype + +: +♀ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +, +Tepic +municipio, +Francisco I. Madero +ejido, + +12/02/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.614016, +Long. +104.823457, #312, +Collector Rafael Robles-Pérez +, USNMENT01894339. +Deposited +at the +NMNH + +. + + +Paratypes + +: +1 ♂ +, +1 ♀ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +, +Tepic +: +Ejido +: + +Santiago +de Pochotitan + +, + +18/02/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.591408 +Long. +104.707154, #437, +Alt. +792 msnm; +Ejido +: +Francisco I. Madero +, + +25/01/2022 + +Lat. +21.564841 +Long. +104.821599, #6, +Alt. +773 msnm + +. + +2 ♂ +, +2 ♀ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +, +Santa María del Oro +, +Ejido Zapotanito +: + +04/03/2022 + +, Lat. 21.321911 Long. 104.627989, #474, Alt. 1,161 msnm; + +04/03/2022 + +, Lat. 21.321911 Long. 104.627989, #484, Alt. 1,161 msnm; + +04/03/2022 + +, Lat. 21.321911 Long. 104.627989, #489, Alt. 1,161 msnm; Ejido San Leonel: + +04/03/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.361985, +Long. +104.704702, #515, +Alt. +1,076 msnm + +. + +1 ♂ +, +Municipio Xalisco +, +Ejido Xalisco +, + +05/03/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.434987, +Long. +104.899262, #635, +Alt. +984 msnm + +. + +1 ♀ +, +Municipio Santiago Ixcuintla +, +Ejido Gavilán Grande +, + +09/02/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.786320, +Long. +105.311135, #218, +Alt +, 7 msnm. +Deposited +at the +NMNH + +. + + + +Additional material examined. +More +than 300 genitalia of specimens from Nayarit, not part of the type series, were dissected and their genitalia compared. +Two +are figured, +1 ♂ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +: +Municipio Santiago Ixcuintla +, +Ejido Puerta de Mangos +, + +11/02/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.734986 +Long. +105.323038, #326, +Alt. +6msnm, +Collector Rafael Robles-Pérez +, USNMENT01899047 ( +Figs. 10–12 +); + + +1 ♀ +, +MEXICO +, +Nayarit +: +Municipio Tepic +, +Ejido Francisco I. Madero +, + +25/01/2022 + +, +Lat. +21.564841, +Long. +104.821599, #4, +Alt. +773 msnm, +Collector Rafael Robles-Pérez +, USNMENT01899043 ( +Fig. 13 +) + +. + + + + +Diagnosis +. Average forewing length (range in parentheses): male=15.0 mm ( +14–16 mm +), n=5; female=18.0 mm ( +17–20 mm +), n=5. Externally ( +Figs. 5–6 +), this species resembles almost all other + +Diatraea +species + +, except that the male has medial dark brown spots on the abdomen. It differs from other + +Diatraea +species + +in genitalia characters as mentioned in the Morphological comparison below. Male genitalia ( +Figs. 10–12 +): tegumen lateral lobe (tll) broad, and slightly arched, not square, not pointed, or not rounded like a finger; valva costa basal lobe (cbl) present, with subequal basal and apical widths, entire lobe wider than long and distally slightly straight (in a few specimens it was straight); juxta with two lateral projections and juxta arms pointed. Female genitalia ( +Fig. 13 +): corpus bursae not straight, 3 times longer than ductus bursae, with a protrusion or bulge about 1/3 distance from ductus bursae, followed by an arch in the form of a slight constriction, ductus bursae half the width of the posterior section of the corpus bursae. + + + +FIGURES 7–12. +Male genitalia. 7, + +D. magnifactella + +, lectotype, USNM slide #97395, vinculum/valvae/phallus. 8, + +D. magnifactella + +, lectotype, USNM slide #97395, tegumen/uncus/gnathos, USNM slide #97395. 9, + +D. considerata + +, holotype, genitalia including phallus, USNM slide #97489. 10, + +D. nayaritella +Robles & Solis + +, + +sp. nov. + +, vinculum, valvae, paratype, #326, USNMENT01899047.11, + +D.nayaritella +Robles & Solis + +, + +sp. nov. + +, tegumen/uncus/gnathos, paratype,#326, USNMENT01899047. [tll=tegumen lateral lobe, cbl=costa basal lobe]; 12, + +D. nayaritella +Robles & Solis + +, + +sp. nov. + +, phallus, holotype, #326, Nayarit, Mexico, USNMENT01899047. Scale bar: 1mm. + + + + +FIGURES 13. + +D. nayaritella +Robles & Solis + +, + +sp. nov. + +, female genitalia, paratype, #4, Nayarit, Mexico, USNMENT01899043 (female mounted dorsoventrally with the abdominal segments pulled aside). Scale bar: 5mm. + + + +Morphological comparison +. We compare + +D. nayaritella + +, + +sp. nov +. + +, with + +D. considerata + +due to the close morphological similarity of the genitalia to the new species. The forewing length of + +D. considerata + +is only slightly shorter in males with an average forewing length of +14.4 mm +( +14–15 mm +) (n=5), but slightly longer in the female, +19.25 mm +( +19–20 mm +) (n=4). In + +D. considerata + +, males ( +Fig. 3 +) have beige and darker brown forms, and the females are light beige with a shiny, white hindwing. In + +D. nayaritella + +, the male ( +Fig. 5 +) and female ( +Fig. 6 +) forewings are light beige, but the hindwing in the male has only a dusting of brown scales, and the female hindwing is shiny white, similar to the hindwing of + +D. considerata + +. The male abdomen of + +D. +nayaritella + +( +Fig. 5 +) has dark brown medial spots that are lacking in + +D. considerata + +. In the male genitalia of + +D. considerata + +( +Fig. 9 +) the tegumen lateral lobe (tll) is rounded like a finger, and slightly pointing upward, whereas in + +D. nayaritella + +( +Fig. 10 +) the lobe is broad and slightly arched, the costa basal lobe (cbl) of the valva in + +D. considerata + +is not straight as in + +D. nayaritella + +, but curved or bulging outward, and in + +D. considerata + +the tip of the juxta arms is flat, not pointed as in + +D. nayaritella + +. In the female genitalia of + +D. considerata + +(see Fig. 26a, USNM slide #114641, in +Solis & Metz, 2016 +), the corpus bursae is mostly straight (although slightly curved in the +type +slide) without protrusions or arches as in + +D. nayaritella + +( +Fig. 13 +), and in + +D. considerata + +the ductus bursae is almost as wide as the posterior section of the corpus bursae, whereas in + +D. nayaritella + +the ductus bursae is half as wide as the posterior section of the corpus bursae ( +Fig. 13 +). + + +In the +Solis and Metz (2016) +key to the male genitalia of + +Diatraea + +(starting at p. 11), + +D. nayaritella + +would key from #31, “Valva basal costal lobe strongly crenulate, carinate and/or denticulate,” then #32, “Lateral lobe of tegumen bluntly pointed or rounded”, to #34, + +D. considerata + +, “Valva basal costal lobe base with basal and apical widths subequal, entire lobe wider and long.” Note: a separate couplet in the male genitalia key would be needed to separate + +D. nayaritella + +from + +D. considerata + +(see above). In the key to female genitalia (starting at p. 14), + +D. nayaritella + +would key from #7, “Corpus bursae length at least 2X greater than width, extending well beyond anterior margin of sternite VIII”, then #8, + +D. considerata + +or + +magnifactella + +, “ductus bursae with longitudinal grooves, uniformly darkened throughout length from ostium to corpus bursae; corpus bursae with pair of acuminate strips of darker cuticle descending from ductus bursae.” Note: a separate couplet in the female genitalia key would be needed to separate + +D. nayaritella + +from + +D. considerata +/ +magnifactella + +(see above). + + + + +Distribution. +The new species is known to occur only in the state of +Nayarit +, +Mexico +( +Fig. 1 +), but in the future, it could be discovered in adjacent sugarcane zones in the states of +Jalisco +, +Colima +, and/or +Michoacán +. + + + + +Biology. + +Diatraea nayaritella + +, + +sp. nov. + +, is known to feed only on sugarcane, but other species of + +Diatraea + +have been reported to feed on other species of +Poaceae +, such as corn, sorghum, wheat, rice ( +Box 1951a +, b, +Box 1953a +, b). A total of 1,441 specimens were collected, and 654 ( +345 males +and +309 females +) survived to adult on an artificial diet. + + +Molecular data. +As part of a Master degree program, Robles-Pérez (2021) sequenced material of the new species, + +D. nayaritella +, + + +sp. nov. + +(GenBank access key MW193580.1, identified as + +D. considerata + +), and compared the COI sequences with the sequences in GenBank. This comparison showed that the specimens collected in +Nayarit +had a 98.91% match with specimens identified as + +D. aff. considerata +/ +magnifactella + +(JQ888376.1, JQ888375.1), but we were unable to locate the publication in which these sequences along with information on methodology, locality, or reason for the scientific name were provided. In +Sinaloa +, a separate study by + +Vejar-Cota +et al +. (2016) + +reported the sequence for specimens confirmed to be + +D. considerata + +, and in their analysis the new species, + +D. nayaritella + +was also labeled as + +D +. +aff. considerata + + +/ +magnifactella + +. + + + + +Etymology. +This species is named for the state of +Nayarit +, +Mexico +, founded in 1917, and whose name in Náhuatl means “son of god that is in the sky and sun.” + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/92/6C/67/926C6774B64A9979E48F21EDAA58137D.xml b/data/92/6C/67/926C6774B64A9979E48F21EDAA58137D.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..a84b8019435 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/92/6C/67/926C6774B64A9979E48F21EDAA58137D.xml @@ -0,0 +1,1373 @@ + + + +Assessment of the Linnaean type material of the Nose-horned viper, Vipera ammodytes (Linnaeus, 1758) + + + +Author + +Krecsák, László +2051 Biatorbágy, Jókai Mór str. 14, Hungary + + + +Author + +Bauer, Aaron M. +Department of Biology and Center for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Stewardship, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA + + + +Author + +Westerström, Alexander +National Museum of Natural History, Tsar Osvoboditel blvd. 1, Sofia 1000, Bulgaria + + + +Author + +Wahlgren, Richard + + + +Author + +Tomović, Ljiljana +University of Belgrade, Faculty of Biology, Studentski trg 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia + + + +Author + +Stille, Bo +Kokkini 1410, 491 00 Corfu, Greece + + + +Author + +Åhlander, Erik +Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department of Zoology, PO Box 50007, SE- 10405 Stockholm, Sweden + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2024 + +2024-11-07 + + +5537 + + +1 + + +24 +48 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5537.1.2 + +journal article +305818 +10.11646/zootaxa.5537.1.2 +2cc2b11e-3920-42bc-91dd-21d7c7ab7c64 +1175-5326 +14239240 +9E917E44-16AB-4C6C-B8FC-96B323BFCEC6 + + + + + + +Bibliographic + + + +review + +The description year of + +Coluber ammodytes + +has been arbitrarily fixed as 1758 since the species was indexed in the 10 +th +Ed. of ‘Systema Naturae’ ( +Linnaeus 1758 +), the starting point of zoological nomenclature ( +ICZN 1999 +: Art. 3). The main description of the taxon was published ten years earlier in a pre-‘Systema Naturae’ work ( +Linnaeus & Sundius 1748 +). + + +The description on page 216–217 of ‘Systema Naturae’ edition 10 ( +Linnaeus 1758 +) ( + +Fig. 1 + +) translates as follows: + + + +FIGURE 1 +Section of pages 216–217 of Ed. 10 of ‘Systema Naturae’ describing + +Coluber ammodytes + +. + + + +Species numbered +174. +[ + +Coluber + +] + +Ammodytes +. 142 + +ventral scales— +32 +subcaudal scales + +Amoen. acad. I. p. +506 n. +25. + +(reference to +Linnaeus 1749a +, +P1 +) + + +Venomous snake (Mars sign + +♂ + +, see +Krecsák & Wahlgren 2008 +). +Bellon. itin., 203. +Druinus. (reference to +Bellon 1605 +, +P2 +) + + +Aldr. Serp. 169. +Ammodytes. (reference to +Aldrovandi 1640 +, +P3 +) + +Lives in the Orient. +Nose terminated in a raised wart. + +In the 12 +th +edition of ‘Systema Naturae’ ( +Linné 1766 +) Linnaeus included the same text ( + +Fig. 2 + +). + + + +FIGURE 2 +Section of pages 376 of ‘Systema Naturae’ Ed. 12 describing + +Coluber ammodytes + +. + + + + +Amoen. acad. I p. +506 n. +25 + +is a reference to ‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ ( +Linnaeus 1749a +), which was initially published in 1748 as a dissertation ( +Linnaeus & Sundius 1748 +), defended by Peter Sundius (1725–1786) on the 18 +th +of +June 1748 +. Once a dissertation was published in the compilation ‘Amoenitates Academicae’, which often included alterations from the original text, Linnaeus started referring to this version and dropped the citation of the original dissertation (Krecsák & Bauer in prep.). In this instance, however, the + +Coluber ammodytes + +text from the dissertation by +Linnaeus & Sundius (1748) +was not altered before its publication in ‘Amoenitates Academicae’ ( +Linnaeus 1749a +). ‘Amoenitates Academicae’ was printed in multiple editions, often with altered text, and selected dissertations were additionally translated in various languages. As such three Latin editions of ‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ can be identified: Ed. 1 printed in Leiden (Lugduni Batavorum) with the dissertation on pages 489–519 ( +Linnaeus 1749b +), Ed. 2 +Stockholm +and Leipzig (Holmiae et Lipsie) with the dissertation on pp. 483–508 ( +Linnaeus 1749a +) and the third Erlangen (Erlangae) edition which included the dissertation similarly on pp. 483–508 ( +Linnaeus 1787 +). The content of the three editions of ‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ is similar. Linnaeus always referred to the +Stockholm +and Leipzig edition ( +Linnaeus 1749a +). + + +‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ included animals that mainly originated from +Dutch Guyana +(now +Suriname +) in South America. The animals were collected by the plantation owner Pater Gerret and his son from +Surinam +and given to Claes Grill (1705–1767) who later donated the collection to the Museum Upsaliense. Grill was a Swedish merchant, factory and ship owner, director of the Grill Trading House, one of the leading companies in the East +India +trade, who had a particular interest in natural sciences and financially supported Linnaeus. The collection included 24 animals of which 17, numbered 3–19, were + +Amphibia + +. + + +In an appendix to the collection, one snake, + +COLUBER scutis abdominalibus CXLII, +Squamis caudalibus +XXXII + +No. 25, is named Ammodita and described: ‘Illustrandae historiae naturalis gratia, serpentum maxime, illius vero imprimis speciei, quae ab Ammodita nomen tulit, Colubrum subjugam ab Illustri & Nobilliss. Regiae Cancellariae Consiliario, D:no EDVARDO CARLESONIO, cum ad Portam Ottomanicam munus legati Extraordinaii obiret, captum.’ (“To illustrate the grace of natural history, particularly of snakes, and of the particular species, which took its name from Ammodita, a +Coluber +was subdued by EDVARDO CARLESONIUS the illustrious and most noble counsellor of the royal chancellery, collected, when he was performing the function of extraordinary ambassador at the Ottoman Gate”). + + +Linnaeus provided two secondary references for the species: Ammodytes ‘Raj.quadrup. 287.’ ( +S1 +) and ‘Jonst. Serp. 14.t.I.f.3.’ ( +S2 +). He describes the colour pattern of the snake, its scales, mentions that it has two large fangs, and provides its distribution as southern parts of Europe, +Italy +, Illyria and that it is also found in +Libya +. He further refers to the horned Aspis ( +Aspidem cornutum +) described by +Matthioli (1565) +( +S3 +) as found in +Italy +. + + +Linnaeus listed +Libya +as an area of occurrence for + +V. ammodytes +, + +based on +Aldrovandi (1640) +and +Jonstonus (1657) +. These authors derived this information from +Solinus (1572) +, who equated Africa to +Libya +: ‘Porro quod in illo ambitu Aegyptium finitur pelagus et Libycum incipit, placuit ut Africam Libyam diceremus.’ (‘Hereafter, because the Egyptian Sea finishes in this circuit and the Libyan begins, it seems good to me to call Africa +Libya +.’). However, Solinus only mentioned +‘Ammoditae’ +as present in Africa. This name is similar to +Hammodytes +used by Marcus Annaeus Lucanus ( +Anonymous 1592 +), which rather refers to the Saharan sand viper ( + +Cerastes vipera + +), and it is likely that both authors, who were referring to Libyan snakes, intended the same species. + + +The specimen collected by Carleson was depicted on the plate that accompanied the dissertation ( + +Fig. 3 + +). The illustrator was P.A. Petersson, and the engraver was Carl Bergquist (1711–1781) who was employed by the Swedish Academy. + + + +FIGURE 3. +Plate from the dissertation by +Linnaeus & Sundius (1748) +with Figure II depicting the + +Coluber ammodytes + +specimen. + + + +Linnaeus published an anonymous review in Swedish of the dissertation in ‘Lärda tidningar’ (Scholarly Newspapers) ( +Anonymous 1748 +). This was not a unique case, multiple instances are documented in which he wrote extensive and highly positive reviews, advertising his publications ( +Lindell 2012 +; +Wahlgren 2012 +; Krecsák & Bauer in prep.). + + +For a review of the specimens associated with the primary and secondary references, see + +Table 2 + +. + + +Although it can be established with certainty that the specimen stored in UPSZMC is the one depicted on plate I of ‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ ( +Linnaeus & Sundius 1748 +; +Linnaeus 1749a +), we have scrutinized and reviewed the manuscript and published catalogues of the collections in order to identify any further + +V. ammodytes + +specimens that might have been studied by Linnaeus. + + + + + + + + +The +type +material + + + + +The illustrated specimen can be traced throughout the manuscript catalogues of the collection (see +Krecsák & Wahlgren 2008 +). UPSZMC housed a specimen (or several specimens) of + +Coluber ammodytes + +, as the species was recorded in Catalogue I, the oldest account of the collection from the 1780s. Catalogues II to VIII recorded +one specimen +of + +Coluber ammodytes + +from the AL (i.e., Alströmer/Linné) donation, and Catalogue IV contains a remark that the specimen was in good condition. Ossian Olofsson’s ‘Linne´samlingarna’ contains the same info as above. + + +Thunberg (1787) +listed the specimen in the ‘6. et 7. Donatio 1749 et sequentibus annis Jonae Alströmer nec non Caroli a Linné’ donation and states that it was donated by Edvardo Carleson, counselor of the king’s chancellery and refers to Linnaeus’s dissertation in ‘Amoenitates Academicae’, giving two scale counts 142:32, and a short comment in a footnote: “Dono datus ab Edvardo Carleson, Reg. Cancellariae Consiliario. LINN. Amoen.Acad. Tom. I p. 517.”. The reference was considered a misprint for page 506 by +Lönnberg (1896) +, but it was actually only a difference in the editions used. Linnaeus used and referred to the +Stockholm +edition ( +Linnaeus 1749a +) of ‘Amoenitates Academicae’ where the description begins on page 506, whereas Thunberg used the Leiden edition ( +Linnaeus,1749b +) in which the Appendix starts on page 517. The scale counts given by Thunberg agree with the counts in different works by +Linnaeus (1749a +, +1758 +, 1766). +Lönnberg (1896) +mentioned that the individual is the same as depicted on plate XVII of ‘Surinamensia Grilliana’ ( +Linnaeus 1749a +), with the mouth still opened. +Wallin (2001) +listed the specimen as donated to the museum by C. von Linné, with a note that it originated from E. Carleson. + + +At present there are no specimens of + +Coluber ammodytes + +housed in The Swedish Museum of Natural History that are possible candidates for being material examined by Linnaeus. The collection housed a snake (NRM 784) from the De Geer collection, which was identified by Charles De Geer as + +Coluber ammodytes + +. Records show that the particular specimen could not have been present in De Geer’s collection until after 1758. It was reidentified as + +Xenodon severus + +by Lars Gabriel Andersson around 1898. The specimen could not be found in the NRM collection in 2024, but there is no indication that it was examined by Linnaeus, and it is not considered as ever being part of the +type +series. + + +Primary references +P2 +and +P3 +and secondary references +S1–S11 +contain descriptions of + +V. ammodytes + +and/or other snake species, as shown is + +Table 2 + +. There are no known extant specimens that may have been the source of the above descriptions. + + + + +TABLE 2. +Review of the primary and secondary references. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Reference type Primary (P), Secondary (S) + +Reference by Linnaeus + +Work cited + +Number of specimens and remarks + +Existence of specimen +
P1 +Amoen. acad. I p. 506 n. 25 + +Linnaeus 1749a + +One male, also depicted on plate XVII, fig. UPSZTY 95 II ( +Fig. 3 +) +
P2 +Bellon. it.n., 203. + +Bellon 1605 +General description without specifying–
+Druinus [ +sic +]. + +specimen(s). Dryinus depicted on page 203 is a Levante viper ( + +Macrovipera lebetinus + +). Supported by Bellon’s statement as well, that this is the largest snake he has seen. +
S7 in P3 +Aldrovandi (1640) +highlights that Bellon’s + +Aspis + +might be + +V. ammodytes + +. The snake that is reported by Bellon as having a wart on the front of his head is most likely a + +V. aspis + +and not + +V. ammodytes + +since Bellon encountered the species before (in Brutios +
+= Calabria) which is within the distribution of the Southern Italian asp ( + +Vipera aspis hugyi +) + +. +
P3 +Aldr. Serp. 169. +Ammodytes. + +Aldrovandi 1640 +General description without specifying specimen(s), but at least one specimen +Not extant ( + +Bauer +et al. +2013 + +) +
+was examined, since the snake depicted on page 169 is indeed + +Vipera ammodytes + +. +
S1 in P1 + +Ammodytes +Raj. + +quadrup +. 287. + +Raio 1693 + +General description of + +Vipera ammodytes + +, without specifying specimen(s). Libya is mentioned as occurrence. In 17th century works Libya actually meant all of +No specimens collected by Raio known in museums.
known Africa and this term was sometimes used in this way into early modern times.
+ + +......continued on the next page + + + +TABLE 2. +(Continued) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Reference type Primary (P), Secondary (S) + +Reference by Linnaeus + +Work cited + +Number of specimens and remarks + +Existence of specimen +
S2 in P1 +Jonst. Serp. 14.t.I.f.3. + +Jonstonus 1657 + +General description without specifying specimen(s), but at least one specimen was examined, since the snake depicted as + +Ammodites + +on Plate I. is a + +Vipera ammodytes + +. +No specimens collected or studied by Johnstonus known in museums.
S3 in P1 S11 in P3 +Matthiolus in Dioscoride p. 950 + +Matthioli 1565 + +The snake species named Ammoditae by Matthioli was + +Vipera ammodytes + +. He provides a general description of the species specifying specimen(s) and notes its distribution as occurring in multiple areas of Italy and Illyria especially in the Gorizia municipality and the mountains of Iapidia (Istria). +–
S4 in P3 +Gessner (1587) + +General description of + +Vipera ammodytes + +, without specifying specimen(s). +–
S5 in P3 +Aetius (1549) + +Aetius’s +Ammodite +or +cenchria +is + +Vipera ammodytes + +, described without specifying specimen(s). +–
S6 in P3 +Avicenna (1556) + +The species listed as +amiudutus +and +caubarus +(p. 219) have a colour pattern similar to a nose-horned viper, but the description is not detailed enough to identify the species. +–
S8 in P3 +Aeliani (1562) + +Ammodatë +(sand diver) could be + +V. ammodytes + +, but the description is not detailed enough to identify the species. Linnaeus maintained this sand diver name +–
+in his publications (Krecsák +et al +. in press). +
S9 in P3 +Magno (1555) + +The orange coloured snake with black colour pattern mentioned by Magnus (1555) could be + +V. ammodytes + +, but the description is not detailed enough to identify the species. +–
+ + + +......continued on the next page + + + + +TABLE 2. +(Continued) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Reference type + +Reference by + +Work cited + +Number of specimens and remarks + +Existence of +
+Primary (P), + +Linnaeus + +specimen +
+Secondary (S) +
S10 in P3 +Anonymous (1592) + +Hammodytes +“its colour indistinguishable +–
from scorched sand” is rather the Saharan
+sand viper ( + +Cerastes vipera + +), since the +
author talks of the Libyan snakes and
+additionally records C +erastes +as a separate +
species.
+Böhme & Koppetsch (2021) +discussed +
in detail this work by Marcus Annaeus
Lucanus (39–65 AD) or Lucan from
Cartagena, originally a friend of emperor
Nero (37–68 AD) and concluded that
Hammodytes might be the nose-horned
+viper or another European + +Vipera +species. + +
+ + + + +Description of the +lectotype + + + +Specimen: UPSZTY 95, Nr. 95, Donation: C. Grill. ( + +Fig. 4 + +). + + +Printed label by Dr. Åke Holm (1909–1989), former Director of the Zoological Museum, in the jar: +Uppsala +Univ. Zool. +Mus +. Linnésamlingen nr. 95 + +Coluber ammodytes + +. Information on the card file in the Linnaean collection: + +Coluber Ammodytes +L. + +; Linnésaml. 95; + +Vipera ammodytes +Latreille + +; Ldb 1897no. 25; +Mus +. Grill 25. Additionally, the part dealing with the taxon has been cut and glued from a reprint of +Lönnberg’s 1896 +paper. + + +The individual is preserved in a new glass cylinder to which it was transferred during the 1950s by Holm (L. Wallin pers. comm.). The original jar with the rectangular paper label with ink inscription in Thunberg’s handwriting ( + +Fig. 5 + +) is stored on a separate shelf with other glassware. + + +The specimen, a subadult male, shows signs of damage ( + +Fig. 4 + +). Its mouth was probably kept open with a solid object in order to show its fangs. Most probably it was killed with a stick, but the damage was not depicted on the plate. Artistic freedom and the primary aim of depicting the species, not the specimen, motivated the illustrator to draw an intact snake that shows no signs of damage. Examples of similar approaches of artistic freedom while depicting preserved material are well known from the 16 +th +to 18th centuries ( +Simmons & Snider 2012 +). + +Morphometric characters: SVL: 216, TL: 21, L cor: 202.42, Lt cor: 8.82, Alt cor: 8.69, L cap: 13.58, Lt cap: 12.83, Do: 1.91/1.95, Dols: 1.92/1.94, Alt corni: 2.07, Alt r: 2.88, L scr: 2.81, Lt scr: 2.38. +Scalation characters: PreV: 5, Ventr: 149, DorsN: 21, DorsMb: 21, DorsT: 17, Scd: 33/33, SupL: 9/9, SubL: 10/10, Horn: 17, Cant: 2/2, Apic: 2/2, Lor: 6/6, CircO: 10/10, CircO2: 3/5, CircO2C: 2/1, Im/SL:4/4, Gul: 4/4, + +Colour pattern and qualitative characters: Very pale currently. Linnaeus ( +Linnaeus & Sundius 1748 +; +Linnaeus 1749a +) described the specimen as grey and almost orange in colour, with darker dorsal zigzags, ZZW: 36/34, ZZW2: 10/10. Belly and subcaudal surface light beige. States of qualitative traits according to +Tomović (2006) +: I:2, II:0, III:0, IV:1, V:1, VI:3, VII:2, VIII:0, IX:0. + + + +FIGURE 4. + +Coluber ammodytes + +specimen UPSZTY 95, collected by Carleson. Details of the lateral side of the head right and left; dorsolateral view of the whole specimen; frontal view of the rostral area; and dorsal view of the head. + + + + +Nomenclatural aspects + + + +Mertens & Müller (1928) +proposed the restriction of the +type +locality of + +Vipera ammodytes ammodytes +(Linné) + +to Illyria. + + +Schwarz (1936) +, in the synonymy of + +Vipera ammodytes ammodytes + +, mentioned the name +Ammodytes +from the work ‘ +Serpentum +et +Draconum Historiae’ +by +Aldrovandi (1640) +and gave the provenance of the individual as +Dalmatia +, +Goerz +, +Japidiç Mountains +. For + +Coluber ammodytes +Linnaeus, 1758 + +, +Schwarz +stated that the individual described in the 10 +th +edition of ‘ +Systema Naturae’ +( +Linnaeus, 1758 +) was the specimen previously described by Aldrovandi. He also proposed the restriction of the +type +locality to Zara (Zadar; +Croatia +) without clarification or explanation. Later, the restricted +type +locality, Zadar, was followed by +Mertens & Müller (1940) +, +Mertens & Wermuth (1960) +, +Saint Girons (1978) +, + +McDiarmid +et al +. (1999) + +, and + +Heckes +et al +. (2005) + +. + + + +FIGURE 5. +Original jar with the label in Thunberg’s handwriting. + + + +Bruno (1968) +restricted the type locality to near +Castello Nuovo di Duino +( +Trieste +, +Venezia Giulia NW +), NE +Italy +, noting the +holotype +as male uv., 95 SCL-ZMUU, leg. +E. Carlesonio +( +Bruno 1968 p. 293 +, plate 1). He discussed the source of the individual, arguing that it was given to Linnaeus by the councillor +E. Carlesonio +, ambassador of the +Republic of Venezia +in +Turkey +(Türkiye), who found it on a pile of sand near the entrance to the Duino Castle. This specific demarcation of the collection place could not be found in any printed material, and the source could not be obtained from the author (Bruno pers. comm.). Bruno performed an assessment of the primary references in ‘Systema Naturae’ edition 10 ( +Linnaeus 1758 +), reviewed the origin of the species and specimens described therein and thereafter unambiguously referred to the specimen UPSZTY 95 as the typus, thereby designating the specimen as the +lectotype +in accordance with Article 74.5 of the Code ( +ICZN 1999 +). + + + +Heckes +et al. +(2005) + +questioned the validity of +Bruno’s (1968) +decision and argued that the only certain information is that provided in the original description ( +Linnaeus 1758 +), i.e. ‘Habitat in Oriente’, and considered the restriction of the +type +locality to Zadar, proposed by +Schwarz (1936) +to be correct, although the logic of this is unclear. + + + +Results of the statistical analysis + + + +Morphometric and meristic characters: Results of Discriminant Canonical Analysis on 12 morphometric and meristic characters showed that, in the projection of the first and second canonical axes, the +lectotype +of + +Vipera ammodytes + +falls within the 95% confidence intervals of the multivariate variability of two subspecies ( + +V +. +a. ammodytes + +and +V. a. montandoni +) + +( +Fig. 6 + +). + + + +FIGURE 6. +Relative position of the lectotype in the projection of the first and the second canonical axes (size-adjusted morphometric and meristic data). Use of names in this figure follows +Tomovic (2006) +and + +Hempel +et al +. (2018) + +. + + + +Qualitative characters: Frequencies of qualitative traits of the subspecies and +lectotype +are given in + +Table 3 +. + + + +Correspondence analysis of four taxonomically informative qualitative characters (sensu +Tomović 2006 +) showed that in the projection of the first and the second correspondence axes the +lectotype +specimen fits with the specimens of the +V. a. montandoni +subspecies + +( +Fig. 7 + +). + + + +TABLE 3. +Frequencies of the states of the qualitative characters in four subspecies and the lectotype specimen (*) + + +of + +V. ammodytes + +. Use of names in this table follows +Tomovic (2006) +and + +Hempel +et al +. (2018) + +. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+Trait + +lectotype + + +V.a. +ammodytes + +(n=333) + +V.a. montandoni +(n=84) + + +V.a. +meridionalis + +(n=29) + + +V.a. +transcaucasiana + +(n=5) +
+I:0 +23211
+I:1 +187514
+I:2 + +* +5342140
+I:3 +75130
+II:0 + +* +2883285
+II:1 +196000
+II:2 +25110
+IV:0 +2640
+IV:1 + +* +658151
+IV:2 +24120104
+V:0 +19770
+V:1 + +* +975212
+V:2 +221213
+ + + +FIGURE 7. +Relative position of the lectotype in the projection of the first and the second correspondence axes (qualitative data). Use of names in this figure follows +Tomovic (2006) +and + +Hempel +et al +. (2018) + +. + + + +These are characterized by the following characters and combination of states: IV:1 (greater height of rostral plate) and V:1 (greater height of rostral plate than of nasorostral plates). This subspecies is also characterized by the more frequent presence of the character state I:0 (suprarostral plate lacking), while the +lectotype +has I:2 (two suprarostral plates) and II:0 (neither nasorostral plate in contact with canthus rostralis), which are also frequent in both +V. a. montandoni +and + +V. a. +meridionalis + +(see + +Table 3 +). + + + + +Vipera +a. +meridionalis + +is additionally characterized by the more frequent presence of character state I:3 (three suprarostral plates) and V:0 (heights of rostral and nasorostral plates equal) ( + +Table 3 + +). + + +In contrast, specimens from the range of the nominotypic subspecies ( + +V. a. +ammodytes + +) are characterized by the more frequent presence of the following character states: I:1 (one suprarostral plate), II:1 (both nasorostral plates in contact with canthus rostralis), IV:2 (greater width than height of rostral plate) and V:2 (greater height of nasorostral plates than of rostral plate) ( + +Table 3 + +). + + + + \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/E9/26/84/E9268415A747C948FF74FDF0FA44FC77.xml b/data/E9/26/84/E9268415A747C948FF74FDF0FA44FC77.xml new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..66e505eb15e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/E9/26/84/E9268415A747C948FF74FDF0FA44FC77.xml @@ -0,0 +1,170 @@ + + + +Review of the genus Statherotis Meyrick, 1909 (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Olethreutinae) from Thailand, with description of a new species + + + +Author + +Pinkaew, Nantasak +Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, 73140, Thailand & Biodiversity Center Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand + + + +Author + +Muadsub, Sopita +0000-0002-9672-1878 +Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, 73140, Thailand +muadsub_s@hotmail.com + + + +Author + +Jaikla, Soraya +0000-0003-4922-733X +Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture at Kamphaeng Saen, Kasetsart University, Kamphaeng Saen Campus, Nakhon Pathom, 73140, Thailand +soraya.jai@ku.th + +text + + +Zootaxa + + +2024 + +2024-11-06 + + +5536 + + +4 + + +536 +550 + + + + +http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5536.4.2 + +journal article +305819 +10.11646/zootaxa.5536.4.2 +757b48c9-175b-49da-bf9e-f8f715c1ecb8 +1175-5326 +14239158 +6577A40A-BFA2-4E30-B5A5-D67309C7FEC1 + + + + + + +Key to species of the genus + +Statherotis + +in +Thailand +(based on adult male) + + + + + + + + +1. Forewing with an elongate patch on costa ( +Fig. 5 +)...................................... + +olenarcha +( +Meyrick, 1931 +) + + + + +- Forewing with a subtriangular patch on costa............................................................... 2 + + + + + +2. Upperside of hindwing medially with a patch of black modified scales ( +Fig. 3 +)...... + +S. discana +( +Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875 +) + + + + +- Upperside of hindwing medially without patch of black modified scale patch...................................... 3 + + + + + +3. Hindwing with a large, rounded anal lobe ( +Fig. 6 +)............................... + +S. maungmaithongi +Pinkaew + + +sp. nov. + + + + +- Hindwing without large, rounded anal lobe................................................................. 4 + + + + + +4. Hindwing subrectangular ( +Fig. 1 +), abdominal segments 6–8 with modified scales ( +Fig. 24 +)...... + +S. amaeboea +( +Lower, 1896 +) + + + + + +- Hindwing subtriangular ( +Fig. 4 +), only abdominal segment 8 with a band of scale sockets at apices of posterolateral rounded lobe ( +Fig. 26 +)...................................................................... + +S. leucaspis +( +Meyrick, 1902 +) + + + + + + + \ No newline at end of file