Taxonomic revision and zoogeographical patterns of the species of Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892 (Geometridae, Ennominae) Author Sh, Hossein Rajaei Author Stüning, Dieter Author Trusch, Robert text Zootaxa 2012 3360 1 52 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.214977 77ee786b-c3de-46c0-a2e8-9247decffea5 1175-5326 214977 Gnopharmia kasrunensis Wehrli ( Figs 15, 16, 17 & 41 ; Map 2) Gnopharmia kasrunensis Wehrli, 1939: 70 . Syntypes 11 3, 6 Ƥ, ZFMK (examined). Type localities: Kasrun, Kunar Takteh, SW. Iran . Lectotype designated herein. Gnopharmia kasrunensis : Wehrli, 1953: 567 , pl. 47f; Rajaei, 2010 : 65 –73; Parsons et al., 1999 : 406 . Gnopharmia musandamensis Wiltshire & Legrain, 1998 , nom. nud. ( Fig. 17 ). Type material examined. Lectotype 3 (hereby designated in order to stabilize nomenclature): ‘Jran [ Iran ] mer. occ. [ Fars ] | Kasrun [Kazerun] | Kunar Takteh | 240 m , Ende III.38 [1938]’; Coll. ZFMK , Lectotype 3, Gnopharmia kasrunensis Wehrli, 1939 , des. Rajaei, Stüning & Trusch, 2011’ (see fig. 15). Paralectotypes : 1 3, same data and locality as lectotype ; 1 3, same data and locality as lectotype , Wehrli genitalia slide no. 7257; 1 3, same data and locality as lectotype , ‘ Gnopharmia maculifera Stgr. kasrunensis Wehrli , 3 Holotype’, ‘ Gnopharmia maculifera Stgr. kasrunensis Wehrli , abgebildet Seitz IV. Suppl. fig.’; ‘gen. prep. 412/ 2008 H. R.’; 1 Ƥ, same data and locality as lectotype , Prep. SEM 40/ 2010; 3 3, ‘Jran [ Iran ] mer. occ. [ Fars ] | Kasrun | 900 m , Ende IV.38 [1938]’; 1 3, same data and locality (= G. colchidaria sinesefida ); 1 3, same data and locality, gen. prep. 915/ 2010 H. R. (= G. irakensis ); 1 Ƥ same data and locality, ‘ Gnopharmia maculifera Stgr. kasrunensis Wehrli, Ƥ Allotype’, ‘ Gnopharmia maculifera Stgr. kasrunensis Wehrli , abgebildet Seitz IV. Suppl. fig.’, ‘gen. prep. 885/ 2009 H. R.’, 2 Ƥ, same data and locality, Prep. SEM-19/2010 & genitalia slide 886/ 2009; 1 Ƥ, same data and locality (= G. i r a k e n s i s ).—Collectors of E. Pfeiffer, Munich. All types in coll. ZFMK . 2 3, 2 Ƥ, ‘N-Oman, Musandam | env. Sayhakil, 600–950 m | 28.04. et 0 3.05.1992 | [leg.] A. Legrain, J. Plante | Fr. Aulombard’, ‘ Paratype Gnopharmia musandamensis n.sp. Wiltshire, in lit.’, ‘gen. preps 418/2008, 913/2010 (3), 417/ 2008 (Ƥ), H. R.’, ‘ G. kasrunensis Wehrli, 1939 | det. H. R., 2009’; Additional material studied: 221 3, 177 Ƥ, see appendix. Description. Wings and body ( Figs 15 & 16 ). Frons conically extended, with a separate central process set into a distal depression. Genae with a strong antero-ventral process. Free apical flagellomeres in male antennae 12. Forelegs with a long tibial spine. Wingspan 3 22–29 mm. Ground colour of wings light cream or greyish-white; transverse lines indicated by a few rather distinct, dark brown spots, slightly suffused with orange, those on costa rather larger and without orange hue. Postmedial row consisting of more numerous but smaller spots which are also rather orange than brown. Broad, dark grey submarginal bands present, bordered distally by the light, dentate submarginal line; marginal area sometimes light as ground colour, but often also suffused darker brown or grey (then the whitish apical patch very distinct). Discal dots blackish brown. Hindwings with colour and pattern elements similar, submarginal band broad. Under side with basal two thirds almost white, suffused with greyishbrown scales, more strongly so in the forewings. Discal dots blackish-brown, clearly marked, a white apical patch present in forewings. Submarginal bands very distinct, blackish-brown, proximal border strongly curved, its posterior end running into tornus or even into termen, often leaving the tornus in the hind wings white. Variation is very low in this species. Rarely the width of the submarginal bands on under side may be reduced, in a few specimens strongly so. Despite the large number of specimens we examined, we have not seen forms as they frequently occur in G. colchidaria or G. cocandaria (e.g. ground colour strongly suffused with dark grey or brown). Male genitalia and pre-genital abdomen ( Fig. 41 ). Tooth-like projections of sacculus are of equal size. Aedeagus short (1.2–1.5 mm) and stout, with 2–6 proximal subapical spines of different length (up to 0.3 mm), longest spines exceeding the tip of the aedeagus shaft. Distal subapical spines completely absent, a large, multiple cornutus present on vesica. Ventral fin of aedeagus well developed (exceeding ½ diameter of the shaft). Octavals long (> 0.5 mm), with a wide, u-shaped gap between them, terminal parts strongly curved. Diagnosis. Externally, G. kasrunensis strongly resembles the ‘ maculifera ’-form of G. cocandaria , however, the spotting is even a bit stronger in that form and the wing-shape more elongate. Also the shape of the aedeagus and the arrangement of spines are similar. However, the aedeagus is narrower in cocandaria and the proximal subapical spines do not exceed the tip of the shaft. In addition, cocandaria lacks a cornutus, but has some distal, tooth-like spines which are absent in kasrunensis . Moreover, both species do not occur sympatrically. G. irakensis and G. colchidaria sinesefida are species frequently collected together with kasrunensis . The former is very similar externally, just a little more brownish in ground colour and less distinctly spotted on upperside, the under side being extremely similar. But there are a number of characters clearly distinguishing both (see description of irakensis and diagnoses of previous species). G. c. sinesefida resembles kasrunensis in the shape of the frons and male antennae, but has a longer and narrower aedeagus with much shorter proximal spines, arranged in a straight row. In addition, there is one rather large distal spine present in sinesefida . Octavals are long in all three species, but strongly curved in the distal parts in kasrunensis only (fig. 41). Barcoding results (see fig. 54) indicate a clear distinctness of kasrunensis from other species of Gnopharmia . Taxonomic note. Wehrli (1939: 70–71) based the description of G. kasrunensis on 11 males and 6 females , without designating a holotype . Nine males and all females could be found in his collection, which is part of the ZFMK Lepidoptera collection. As can be seen by his hand-written labels, he originally intended to describe kasrunensis as a subspecies of G. maculifera (now a synonym of G. cocandaria ). He knew maculifera well, even the types , of which he had made photos by himself (l. c., p. 70 and 1953: 567). Wiltshire later (1967: 157) incorrectly stated that “In his revision of this genus in Seitz IV, Suppl., Wehrli omitted mention of this form ( maculifera ), described by Staudinger from Samarkand….” In fact, he mentioned it and compared it with kasrunensis . As part of the type series, we found one male and one female of G. irakensis and one male of G. colchidaria sinesefida , misidentified as kasrunensis . Therefore it was necessary to designate a lectotype for kasrunensis . Wehrli labelled a male and a female as ‘holotype’ and ‘allotype’, an invalid subsequent type designation. We chose another male of better quality (with complete set of legs and antennae) as lectotype (see fig. 15). Wiltshire and Legrain (1998) published two photos of a male and a female of Gnopharmia ‘ musandamensis ’, but without adding a description. According to article 13 of the ICZN (Fourth edition, 1999) this name is not available. Requirements for availability of new names published after 1930 include a description or definition to differentiate the taxon. G. musandamensis therefore is a nomen nudum, but it is clearly conspecific with G. kasrunensis and represents an interesting new locality for this species. On the other hand, we could not find distinguishing characters that would allow us to treat the population from Oman as a distinct subspecies (see fig. 17). To decide this question more material is necessary. Life history and habitat. Larval stages and biology are described by Rajaei (2010) , morphology of eggs, larvae and a setal map chaetotaxial scheme of larva are figured. Larvae (L1–L4) were successfully reared on Prunus ( Amygdalus ) scoparia (Rosaceae) . Probably, this species is not univoltine, but the number of generations (two or three) could not be stated exactly. The specimens studied here have a flight period from 9th February (Hormozgan, S. Iran , 830 m ) until 12th September (Mian-Jangal, S. Iran ), the majority was collected during May and June. All specimens were attracted to artificial light at night. In many localities in southern Iran kasrunensis occurs sympatrically with G. c. sinesefida and G. irakensis . Distribution (Map 2). G. kasrunensis is distributed mainly in South and East Iran (central and eastern Zagros mountains), but some populations are also recorded from west of Iran . Single records from central and eastern Alborz mountains show that is also present but rare in the northern parts of Iran . The newly recorded localities from N. Oman (‘ musandamensis ’) are rather close (though separated by Strait of Hormus ) to some of the main localities in E. Iran and therefore are not really surprising.