<strong> Systematic revision and review of the extant and fossil snout butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Libytheinae) </ strong> Author Kawahara, Akito Y. text Zootaxa 2013 2013-03-22 3631 1 1 74 http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3631.1.1 journal article 10.11646/zootaxa.3631.1.1 1175-5326 5261853 A355AA9D-3644-4F29-84AA-5D398D2EE6D0 Libytheana vagabunda (Scudder 1889) ( Fig. 63 ) Prolibythea vagabunda Scudder 1889a: 465 , pl. 53, Figs. 4–9 . Libythea vagabunda Shields 1985a: 13 . Preservation. This compression fossil is preserved lying on its dorsum, and is missing the left antenna, forewing and hindwing. Three carinae are visible on the right antenna, verifying its identification as a nymphalid. The right forewing and hindwing overlap, obscuring most of the wing pattern. The foreleg has 3 to 4 rows of short spines on the mesothoracic tibia, and small tarsi with slightly curved claws. These characteristics led both Scudder (1889a) and Shields (1985a) to conclude that the specimen is female. Biology. Unknown, but Shields (1985a) noted that P. vagabunda may have fed on C. maccoshi because two well-preserved leaves of Celtis maccoshi Lesq. were found in the same beds from which the butterfly was found. Deposition. The specimen is currently stored in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Data on the specimen read: “Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts . No. 5, Field #16,353, Prolibythea vagabunda , Type , Scudder Collection, Florissant, Colorado .” Remarks. Scudder (1889a) recognized the overall similarity in forewing shape to modern Libytheinae , but erected Prolibythea because the fossil possesses several unusual characteristics (e.g., unique wing venation, and a lobe at the hindwing margin of CuA 2 ). After restudying this specimen, Shields (1985a) concluded that Scudder’s description was incorrect, and suggested that the specimen would best be placed within Libythea because of similarities in wing morphology, tibia and tarsi. He believed that the specimen most closely resembled L. lepita formosana . Kawahara (2009) scored the visible morphological features of this fossil and included the fossil in a cladistic analysis. The vagabunda fossil has two characters that clearly place it in Libytheana : 1) a forewing Rs 2 with a base closer to fork of Rs 3 + Rs 4 than discal cell apex; and 2) a discontinuous band from forewing costal margin to M 3 . Kawahara (2009) transferred vagabunda to Libytheana , along with florissanti . Carpenter (1992: 379 , Fig. 1 ) incorrectly illustrated the wing venation of vagabunda , and published a wing of a Parnassinae ( Papilionidae ). Refer to Scudder (1889a) for additional illustrations and images of L. vagabunda .