Description of Ptychocroca, a new genus from Chile and Argentina, with comments on the Bonagota Razowski group of genera (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Euliini) Author Brown, John W. Author Razowski, Józef text Zootaxa 2003 303 1 31 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.156574 09c16756-690f-4b64-855f-b7194ef3b3c3 1175­5326 156574 Ptychocroca crocoptycha (Meyrick) , new combination Figs. 8, 9 , 21 , 32, 33 Peronea crocoptycha Meyrick, 1931a : 383 . Acleris crocoptycha : Clarke, 1958 : 4 (illustration of adult and male genitalia). “ Eulia ” crocoptycha : Powell et al., 1995 : 146 . Diagnosis. Ptychocroca crocoptycha is one of three species (along with P. galenia and P. simplex ) in which the male has a rounded tuft of erect scales near the base of the costa of the forewing. The male genitalia of P. crocoptycha can be distinguished from those of P. galenia and P. s i m p l e x by the upraised, longitudinal “comb” across the disc of the valva. Redescription. Male forewing ( Figs. 32, 33 ) with tuft of erect scales near base of costa. Male hindwing with hairpencil in fold of vein CuP, with patch of dense beige­orange scales on each side of fold. Male genitalia ( Figs. 8, 9 ) with uncus, socii, and gnathos as described for genus. Transtilla with small mesal lobe. Valva attenuating distally more evenly than congeners; venter only slightly undulate, with convexity extremely weak; small thorn ca. 0.4 distance from base to apex; disc of valva with an upraised, delicate, longitudinal comb in distal 0.67, weak plication in basal 0.33. Aedeagus as described for genus, but with rather short lateral thorn at distal end; vesica with long, dense row of short, spinelike cornuti near middle and a group of smaller cornuti in distal 0.33. Female genitalia ( Fig. 21 ) with sterigma a broad transverse band, dilated mesally, anteostial part large, rounded proximally; lateral arms weakly angulate dorsally; portion around ostium large, rounded, weakly spiculate; antrum ill­defined, membranous, giving rise to rounded accessory sack from moderately broad ductus; lateral sclerite of colliculum well developed. Holotype , ɗ, Argentina , Territory Río Negro, Lake Gutierrez, 3–14 Nov 1926 (BMNH). Additional Specimens Examined. Argentina : Chubut Province: El Bolsón, Lago Puelo, 220 m , 17 Nov 1978 (1Ψ), Mision Cientifica Danesa (ZMC), 22–23 Oct 1981 (8ɗ, 2Ψ), Nielsen and Karsholt (ZMC). Neuquén Province: Lago Lacar­Nonthue, 640 m , 2 Dec 1983 (6ɗ, 1Ψ), M. and P. Gentili (USNM). San Martín de los Andes, 640 m , 15 Oct 1979 (1ɗ), 25 Nov 1979 (1Ψ), 30 Oct 1980 (1ɗ), 30 Oct 1982 (1Ψ), M. Gentili (USNM), 10 Oct–6 Nov 1981 (5ɗ, 2Ψ), Karsholt and Neilsen (ZMB). San Martín Andes, Tr. Kura, 1000 m , 28 Nov 1987 (1ɗ), M. and P. Gentili (USNM), 900 m , 6 Nov 1996 (2ɗ), M. Gentili (USNM). Llao Llao Peninsula, Río Negro, bamboo­coihue forest, 12 Dec 1991 (1ɗ), O. Pearson (UCB). Río Negro Province: San Carlos de Bariloche, Colonia Suiza , 800–810 m , 15 Nov–9 Dec 1978 (15ɗ, 5Ψ), Mision Cientifica Danesa (ZMC), 11 Nov–7 Dec 1981 (11ɗ, 8Ψ), Karsholt and Neilsen (ZMB). Chile : Cautín Province: 3 km NE Tolten, 3 m , 26 Feb 1979 (1ɗ), D. and M. Davis and B. Akerbergs (USNM). Malleco Province: Angol , Los Alpes, 650 m , 17 Mar 1979 (1ɗ), Mision Cientifica Danesa (ZMC). Talca Province: Laguna del Maule La Mina, 1000 m , 25 Mar 1979 (1ɗ), Mision Cientifica Danesa (ZMC). Distribution and biology. Ptychocroca crocoptycha occurs primarily in Argentina (we have seen only 3 specimens from Chile ), with captures from near sea level to about 1000 m in the Andes. Most specimens examined were collected between October and December, suggesting a single flight season in Argentina . The three specimens from Chile were collected in February and March. Remarks. The male genitalia of our specimens ( Fig. 8 ) differ from those of the holotype ( Fig. 9 ) in two conspicuous features: the valva are less attenuate and broader apically and the “comb” of the disk of the valva is slightly less developed. It is likely that these differences are partially an artifact of the slide­mounted genitalia preparations, and we assume that they also are at least partially attributable to intraspecific variation. Alternatively, it is possible that our specimens are not conspecific with the holotype .