Remarkable confusion in some Western Palearctic Clepsis leads to a revised taxonomic concept (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) Author Zlatkov, Boyan Author Huemer, Peter text ZooKeys 2019 885 51 87 http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.885.38655 journal article http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.885.38655 1313-2970-885-51 BA152050AF7344CA8CED6D30F963CBC9 BCEA8CB1014D5D329A2E4B2CF99881FF Clepsis semiana ( Chretien , 1915) stat. nov. Cacoecia unifasciana var. semiana Chretien , 1915: 296 (Tunisia) Material examined. Holotype ♂: pinned, with 4 labels: "Cacoecia / unifasciana / v. semiana" [handwritten] "Type" [red, printed] "8.6" [handwritten] "Holotype / Clepsis semiana / ( Chretien , 1915) / Zlatkov & Huemer, 2019 des." [red, printed]. TUNISIA • 1 ♂; MNHN. Remarks. The male genitalia of C. semiana ( Fig. 10C ) are very similar to those of C. striolana . However, there is a clear difference in the wing pattern. Though the lectotype of C. unifasciana var. semiana is poorly preserved, some poorly defined markings can be detected ( Fig. 2O ). The physical distance between the populations of this taxon and C. striolana is considerable and it is very unlikely that var. semiana is conspecific. The synonymy between C. semiana and C. consimilana proposed by Obraztsov (1955) is not justified. Apparently, it is rooted in the initial incorrect assignment of var. striolana to Cacoecia unifasciana , but the latter turned out to be a junior synonym of Clepsis consimilana (see below). The taxon var. semiana was mechanically moved to the synonymic list of C. consimilana without studying the genitalia of the type specimen.