Ourocnemis axiochus Hewitson 1867
Creators: name: Siewert, Ricardo Russo
name: Dias, Fernando Maia Silva
name: Dolibaina, Diego Rodrigo
name: Mielke, Olaf Hermann Hendrik
name: Casagrande, Mirna Martins
name: Lamas, Gerardo
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2014
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Lycaenidae
Ourocnemis
Ourocnemis axiochus

description: Ourocnemis axiochus (Hewitson, 1867), stat. rest.
(Figs 34–35, 40, 42)
Anteros axiochus Hewitson, 1867, p. [77], pl. [42] Erycinidae, Anteros I, figs 1–2 (under side and upper side).— Bates, 1868, p. 435.— Herrich-Schäffer, 1868, p. 126.— Kirby, 1871, p. 311.— Kirby, 1879, p. 201.— Mengel, 1905, p. 91.
Ourocnemis axiochus; Bethune-Baker, 1887, p. 175.— Zikán, 1928, p.19.— Stichel, 1928, p. 148. syn.: archytas.— Stichel, 1930, p. 540. syn.: architas [sic].— Hemming, 1965, p. 103. syn.: archytas. Hemming, 1967, p. 328. syn.: archytas. — Zikán & Zikán, 1968, p. 55.— Biezanko, Mielke & Wedderhoff, [1979], p. 16.— Cowan 1983, p. 246. syn.: archytas.—ICZN, 1986, p. 44–45. syn.: archytas.— Bridges, 1994, v. IV, p. 32, v. VIII, p. 56., syn.: archytas.— Callaghan & Lamas, 2004, p. 161, syn.: archytas.— Siewert, Iserhard, Romanowski, Callaghan & Moser, 2014, additional material.
Diagnosis. Ourocnemis axiochus, stat. rest., can be distinguished from O. archytas (Figs 36–37, 41, 43) by the following characteristics: forewing under side with a marginal band—formed by a steel blue line bounded proximally and distally by dark brown lines—from M2 to the tornus, while in O. archytas, the same band reaches the apex; forewing under side yellow discal band narrow, while in O. archytas this band is generally wider and triangular in shape; forewing under side with a yellow spot in M3–CuA1 that reaches the steel blue line of the marginal band, absent in O. archytas; hind wing under side with a yellow spot which interrupts the marginal band at the tornus in 2A–3A, while in O. archytas this spot is absent and the marginal band is bordered proximally by a wide yellow band; abdomen ventrally dark brown instead of rufous red; valval tip wide and rounded instead of tapering to a point directed dorsally.
Taxonomic comments. Papilio archytas was described based on an unstated number of specimens from Surinam (Stoll 1787). Unfortunately, the whereabouts of the type material is unknown (it belonged to the private collection of L. F. Holthuizen, which was auctioned in Hamburg and Stralsund, Germany, between 1796 and 1800; Horn et al. 1990). Anteros axiochus Hewitson, 1867 probably was described based on a single male specimen (only one specimen was found in Hewitson’s collection by Kirby (1879)), with the vague type locality “ Brazil ”; the type is deposited in the BMNH and is illustrated by Warren et al. (2014). The illustration of the ventral side of the wings of O. archytas provided by Stoll (1787: pl. 5, figs 5, 5F) clearly depicts a specimen with a dark brown marginal band along the outer margin that reaches the apex in the forewing, without a yellow spot at the tornus of the hind wing. The dark brown marginal band along the forewing outer margin of the type, described and figured by Hewitson (1867: pl. [42] Erycinidae, Anteros I, fig. 2) and Warren et al. (2014), does not reach the apex; and there is a distinct yellow spot on the forewing outer margin and on the hind wing tornus. The name Papilio archytas Stoll, 1787 was widely neglected and most authors prior to Stichel’s (1930) catalogue used the specific epithet axiochus, combined with either Anteros or Ourocnemis (Stichel 1931, Bridges 1994). The specific epithet archytas probably was neglected for so long due to the association of that name to the Hesperiidae by Hübner ([1819]), an error repeated in the works of Verloren (1837), Kirby (1871) and Scudder (1875). Ourocnemis archytas was recognized as a riodinid by Seitz (1920: 727), who promptly placed it as a senior subjective synonym of O. axiochus, probably due to the superficial similarity between these taxa and the unsatisfactory description and illustrations provided by Stoll (1787). Nevertheless, the name archytas was put in use again only after Stichel (1930, misspelled O. architas [sic]) (e.g. D’Abrera 1994, Lewis 1973, misspelled Ourochnemis [sic] archytes [sic]).
The specimen and the genitalia identified as O. axiochus illustrated by Stichel (1911: pl. 26, fig. 67, pl. 16, fig. 67c) correspond to O. archytas. Stichel apparently neglected that name until 1928 (Stichel 1928). Seitz also neglected that name and identified an unstated number of specimens collected in Cuiabá, Brazil as O. axiochus (Seitz 1917), only using the name O. archytas three years later in the “Additions and Corrections” to “ Die Gross Schmetterlinge der Erde ” (Seitz 1920, misspelled O. archytos [sic]). The illustration of the under side of the wings of one of the above cited specimens (Seitz 1917: pl. 133, fig. h [6]) clearly confirms its identity as O. archytas.
Ourocnemis was erected by Bethune-Baker (1887) to include Anteros axiochus Hewitson, 1867. Bethune- Baker (1887) based the description of the genus on two female specimens, collected in Goya, Corrientes, Argentina. The previously established name Aetheius Hübner, [1819], type-species Papilio archytas Stoll, 1787 by selection by Scudder (1875) (Hemming 1967: 29, 328, misspelled Aethius [sic] and Papilio achytas [sic] Stoll, [1787] [sic]), had been completely neglected, while the name Ourocnemis was in continuous use ever since it was published (Hemming 1967). Aetheius was eventually suppressed and Ourocnemis conserved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 1381 (ICZN 1986). However, if one analyses the description and illustrations provided by Bethune-Baker (1887), especially the illustration of the under side of the wings (Bethune-Baker 1887: pl. 9, fig. 2), the specimens examined by him would be better identified as O. archytas. Bethune-Baker himself noted sharp differences between his specimens and Hewitson’s type, and judged necessary to describe the female in detail (Bethune-Baker 1887: 175). Furthermore, O. axiochus is only known from southern and southeastern Brazil, while most records of O. archytas are from Paraguay, Argentina and southwestern Brazil (Fig. 44) (Seitz 1917; Stichel 1930; D’Abrera 1994; Lewis 1973; Mota et al. 2014), much more similar in habitat and closer geographically to the Corrientes, Argentina, specimens studied by Bethune-Baker. Records of O. axiochus for various localities in the Amazon basin or Central America most likely do not represent the species (Lichy 1936; Hall 1940; Forster 1949; Ortiz 1967; Tello 1968; Warren et al. 2014). Examination of the specimens identified by Mielke et al. (2010) as O. archytas reveals that they are in fact A. renaldus renaldus (Stoll, 1790).
Distribution. Ourocnemis axiochus, stat. rest. is known only from southern and southeastern Brazil Atlantic forests from Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul (Biezanko, Mielke & Wedderhoff [1979]) (Fig. 44). Most records are from Araucaria moist forests above 700m, however, there are some records in lower elevations in the municipalities of Joinville, Santa Catarina, and Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul.
Examined material. Ourocnemis axiochus, stat. rest. (18 males, and 6 females): BRAZIL— Paraná: Balsa Nova (São Luiz do Purunã), 9-10-II-2008, Beltrami leg., 1 male, DZ 27.753 (DZUP); Piên (Trigolândia), 900m, 22-25-III-2000, Rank & Moser leg., 1 male, (CLAM), 10-11-II-2001, Rank & Moser leg., 1 male, and 1 female, (CLAM), 22-III-2007, Rank & Moser leg., 1 male, (CLAM), III-2012, Rank & Moser leg., 1 male, (CLAM); São José dos Pinhais, 31-I-1985, C. Mielke leg., 2 males, OM 62.041, OM 62.055 (OM); Tibagi (Parque Estadual do Guartelá), 07-II-2010, Grossi leg., 1 male, DZ 28.347* (DZUP). Santa Catarina: Joinville, no date, Miers leg.,, 1 female, OM 67.707 (OM), 1941, no collector, 1 male, DZ 26.442* (DZUP), 25-IV-1942, 1 male, DZ 27.641 (DZUP), 10-200m, 5-X-1969, Mielke & Miers leg., 1 female, DZ 27.743 (DZUP), 19-III-1973, Miers leg., 1 male, DZ 27.750 (DZUP); São Bento do Sul (Rio Vermelho), 850m, 6-III-1988, Rank leg., 1 male, OM 17.092 and 1 female, OM 17.091, (OM), 4-III-1991, Rank leg., 1 male, OM 25.817 and 1 female, OM 25.835 (OM), 2-III-1999, Rank leg., 2 males, OM 62.984, OM 62.998 (OM), 700m, 8-III-2004, 1 male, Rank & Moser leg., (CLAM), 23-II- 2006, Rank leg., 1 male, OM 67.655 (OM), (Rio Natal), 26-II-2001, Rank leg., 1 female, OM 63.103 (OM). Rio Grande do Sul: Pelotas (Laranjal), 21-III-1964, Biezanko leg., 1 male, DZ 26.509 (DZUP).
Ourocnemis archytas (8 males and 2 females): ECUADOR— Napo: Tena, 650m, X-2010, M. Simon leg., 1 male, (MGCL). COLOMBIA— Valle del Cauca: Cali, 1000m, 6-VII-1981, J. Bolling Sullivan leg., 1 male, (MGCL). PERU— Junín: Santa Ana, 1100m, 11º22'S, 74º44'W, 11-V-1999, I. Callegari leg., 1 male, (MUSM). BRAZIL— Amazonas: São Paulo [de Olivença], no date, no collector, 1 female, (MUSM). Rondônia: Cacaulândia (Fazenda Rancho Grande), 9-VI-1994, R. Schryver leg., 1 male, (MGCL). São Paulo: Itirapina (Cerrado da Graúna), 2-XI-2009, Kaminski leg., 1 male, (ZUEC). PARAGUAY—no date, no collector 1 male, (IML). Guairá: Villarrica, 15-VIII-1968, Anders leg., 2 males, DZ 28.299*, DZ 26.510 (DZUP). ARGENTINA— Formosa: Pirané, R. Golbach leg., 1 female, (IML). Misiones, no date, no collector 1 male, (MLP).
description: Published as part of Siewert, Ricardo Russo, Dias, Fernando Maia Silva, Dolibaina, Diego Rodrigo, Mielke, Olaf Hermann Hendrik, Casagrande, Mirna Martins & Lamas, Gerardo, 2014, New species and taxonomic notes on Antero s Hübner, [1819] and Ourocnemis Bethune-Baker, 1887 (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae), pp. 401-418 in Zootaxa 3860 (5) on pages 412-415, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.3860.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/225331