Taxonomic study of the genus Evergestis Hübner, 1825 (Lepidoptera: Crambidae: Glaphyriinae) in Iran with description of a new species Author Alipanah, Helen Author Khodadad, Masoumeh Author Rajaei, Hossein Author Haseli, Mohammad text Zootaxa 2018 4420 1 1 33 journal article 30081 10.11646/zootaxa.4420.1.1 a3ea0a39-5d5d-4f18-a4b2-4c3aa667f06f 1175-5326 1247134 70B25E60-2637-4D35-8837-14A0796D82B1 Evergestis caesialis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1840) Material examined. HMIM : Iran , Fārs Prov.: 1 ♂ , Estahbān , Koregarmedun , 1750 m , 21.x.1997 , Moghaddam , N. Nazari , Barāri leg. ; SMNK : 1 ♂ , Iran , Elburz , Lar valley , e 8000 ft , E P . Wiltshire , 5.–13.vii.1939 (ex coll. H. G. Amsel ), 1 ♂ 1 ♀ , Z-Afghanistan, Koh-i-Baba , S-Seite Panjao , 2650 m , 20.–22.vii.1966 , H. G. Amsel leg. (ex. coll. H. G. Amsel ) (GS: HA-2037, HA-2038). Distribution. Italy , SE Europe, Morocco , Syria , Iran (Shahkuh, Binalud Mt., Soltanabad, Tehran , Shiraz, Komehr, Elburz Mt., Nesa, Lar valley, Kandovan Rd., Alvand), Afghanistan ( Zerny 1914 , 1939 ; Amsel 1953 , 1961 , 1970 ; Goater 2005 ). FIGURE 5. Female genitalia. A, D, G) Evergestis caesialis . B, E, H) E. comealis stat. n. C, F, I) E. shirazalis . A, B, C: main body in lateral view. D, E, F: colliculum and posterior end of ductus bursae. G, H, I: signa. Remarks. As our knowledge goes, four subspecies are known for this species that all, except the nominative, have been described from Iran ( Zerny 1939 ; Amsel 1953 , 1961 ; Nuss et al . 2003–2017 ). Evergestis caesialis mellealis was collected from Kandovan Rd. in Alborz Prov., in the north of Iran ( Zerny 1939 ) and both E. caesialis shirazalis and E. caesialis comealis from Komehr in Fars Prov., in the south of Iran ( Amsel 1953 , 1961 ). In 1961, E. caesialis shirazalis was raised to the species level, E. shirazalis , by Kuznetsov (1958) . There was no specimen of E. caesialis mellealis to be examined in the current study but since those Iranian specimens loaned from SMNK had been identified as E. caesialis and collected in the same locality of E. caesialis mellealis (see material examined), these specimens were considered to be E. caesialis mellealis . Having said this, the single male Iranian specimen in HMIM collected from Fars (see material examined), which was expected to be E. shirazalis based on the collecting locality, is quite similar to the loaned specimen from SMNK. Therefore, it seems that E. caesialis mellealis can be raised to the species level; however this needs the specimens from the type series of the nominative subspecies, which were not available to study. As later discussed below, owing to the considerable variation between the examined E. caesialis (possibly E. caesialis mellealis ) with E. caesialis comealis specimens of Amsel's collection (including the type specimen of the latter subspecies) and those E. caesialis comealis specimens preserved in HMIM, E. caesialis comealis is here raised to the species level. Diagnosis. As already mentioned above, according to Amsel (1951) E. caesialis is similar to E. affinis externally. The differences of these two species have here been explained and figured ( Figs 1A–D , 2A–J ). The male and female genitalia of the loaned specimens (from Afghanistan and Lar valley) of Amsel's collection were compared with those explained and illustrated by Kuznetsov (1958) and Goater (2005) , revealing that E. caesialis was mistakenly explained and illustrated by Goater (2005) . A close resemblance of E. caesialis to E. shirazalis was stated by Kuznetsov (1958) . As noted by him, these two species can easily be distinguished from each other in the shape and width of uncus, length of gnathos in relation to uncus, teeth on the ventral surface of gnathos and bending angle of distal end of phallus to its proximal end ( Kuznetsov 1958 ). Examining of the type specimen of E. shirazalis showed that the latter character was not informative (see Figs 2E–I , 7B, E, H ). Moreover, Kuznetsov (1958) stated that in E. caesialis cornuti included of two irregular groups of small spines; while in the examined material only one group of small spines was observed, even before preparing permanent slides ( Figs 2E, I ). The female genitalia of E. caesialis and E. shirazalis are also similar to each other ( Figs 5A, C, D, F, G, I ). The main defferences are in the length of antrum and shape of sclerotized structures of signa. In E. caesialis anrum is longer than that of E. shirazalis ( Figs 5A, C, D, F ). Sclerotized plates of signa in both species are almost triangular; however in E. caesialis each plate has a truncated tip comparing to relatively pointed tip in E. shirazalis . The size of plates in E. caesialis , as stated by Kuznetsov (1958) , is also larger than E. shirazalis (Figs G, I).