New Combinations In Neotropical Archipini And Atteriini (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Tortricinae), With The Description Of A New Genus Author Austin, Kyhl A. Author Dombroskie, Jason J. text Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 2020 2020-02-29 122 1 1 11 journal article 10.4289/0013-8797.122.1.1In fa5fe76f-3f7f-4df4-91fd-a533522aae3d 3724761 Sisurcana clivigera (Meyrick), new combination Cacoecia clivigera Meyrick, 1932: 253 . “ Archips ” clivigera : Powell et al. 1995: 148 (new combination). [ Archipini unplaced] clivigera : Brown 2005: 123 . Type material.— Cacoecia clivigera Meyrick, 1932 : Holotype , ♀ : PERU : S. Peru ob., Madre de Dios , 1000 m [photograph examined; Razowski 2010: fig. 53]. Genitalia slide #4354 [figured examined; Razowski 1964 : fig. 12] ( NHMV ). Discussion.—The holotype of Cacoecia clivigera Meyrick, 1932 is identical in wing pattern and female genitalia to what Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010a , 2010b ) identified as the female of Sisurcana topina Razowski and Pelz, 2004 . Sisurcana topina was described from a single male, with the female unknown. In two subsequent publications, Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010a , 2010b ) described a female atteriine which they claim is the female of S. topina . However, sufficient justification was not given to support this association. Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010a) mention twelve specimens of S. topina from four different localities in Peru , including at least one female which they describe and figure, but they do not mention the sexes of any other specimens examined or how the sexually dimorphic sexes were associated. Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010b) mention a series of four females and one male of S. topina reared from larvae in Ecuador , but did not mention that they were all found at separate localities and were found feeding on different hostplants (see Brown et al. 2019 ). They claim they were “from the same place,” but only include the coordinates of the biological research station where they were brought back to be reared once found in the field. Several other species in the same paper are described as new and their type localities are given as the research station where they were reared, not where they were originally collected (a disparity of 65 km in one case). A DNA barcode was taken from a single female specimen, but no males were barcoded, so association of the sexes is not possible. For these reasons, we believe Cacoecia clivigera Meyrick, 1932 is conspecific with the females examined by Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010a , 2010b ) but do not find sufficient evidence to associate it with the male of Sisurcana topina Razowski and Pelz, 2004 , as claimed by Razowski and Wojtusiak (2010a , 2010b ). Thus, we provisionally transfer C. clivigera to Sisurcana until additional material is available for examination.