Strigivenifera eborea Kurshakov & Zolotuhin 2013
Creators: name: Taberer, Tabitha R.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Limacodidae
Strigivenifera
Strigivenifera eborea

description: Strigivenifera eborea Kurshakov & Zolotuhin, 2013
Another problematic set of species which is addressed here is S. eborea Kurshakov & Zolotuhin, 2013 and S. ocellaris Kurshakov & Zolotuhin, 2013. Both of these taxa were described from Ivory Coast (note the TL of the former should be Grand-Béréby and the latter Danané but both are misspelt/mis-transcribed in the original description) and exist in sympatry throughout West Africa. In the male genitalia, the clasping apparatus and aedeagus are identical, with the only difference being the presence of one or two very small, thin cornuti on the aedeagus in S. eborea, which is absent in the related species. Indeed, the presence or absence of cornuti is in most cases a very good species character (Anzaldo et al. 2014). However, through dissections of barcoded specimens from near the type locality (BOLD process ids./gen. slide Nos.: ANLMN8466-21/TT 123; ANLMN8471-21/TT 114; ANLMN8472/TT 115; ANLMN8477-21/TT 116; ANLMN8465-21/TT 141; ANLMN8478-21/TT 140) which recovered with S. eborea paratypes (BOLD process ids.: LIMBC838-11; LIMBC839-11), this character trait was determined to be insufficient for diagnosing the two species, with two of these specimens possessing a single cornutus on the aedeagus (Figs. 4–5, 17–18) whilst it was absent in the others (Figs. 6–7, 19–20); it should be noted that every other aspect of the genital morphology was identical. The reason why the cornuti may not be present in some specimens is speculative; it may just be a variable feature (e.g. in Przystałkowska & Przybyłowicz 2018), or it may have been lost during copulation (as suggested by Evenden et al. 2003) or the transportation of dried specimens. The latter explanation is probable as the cornuti of this species is often singular and incredibly thin, and thus could be easily broken when the juxta and the aedeagus protrudes out of the end of the abdomen as observed in the vast majority of specimens in the ANHRT collections (Fig. 27).
For these reasons, S. eborea and S. ocellaris are treated as conspecific and a new synonymy is presented herein: S. ocellaris Kurshakov & Zolotuhin, 2013 syn. n.
Interestingly, the single paratype specimen of S. ocellaris (BOLD process id.: LIMBC850-11) included in Kurshakov & Zolotuhin’s (2013) phylogeny from the Western Area Peninsula of Sierra Leone was recovered with two other ANHRT specimens (BOLD process ids./gen. slide Nos.: ANLMN8474-21/TT 121; ANLMN8475-21/TT 122) from the same locality, in a completely separate clade to S. eborea. Given that S. ocellaris has here been synonymised with S. eborea, an undescribed species exists in apparent allopatry to S. eborea. It is likely that Kurshakov & Zolotuhin (2013) made an incorrect assumption regarding the specific characters of S. ocellaris based on their single barcoded specimen but it is difficult to understand why they did not designate that barcoded specimen as the holotype. The difference in DNA with the otherwise near-identical West African species is striking, with an APWD of 6.2%, and even more unexpectedly, the Western Area Peninsula specimens recovered as a sister to the Central African S. albidiscalis with APWD of 5.9% albeit with weak support values. Based on this evidence, the description of a new species Strigivenifera smithi sp. n. is provided herein:
description: Published as part of Taberer, Tabitha R., 2022, An updated review of the genus Strigivenifera Hering, 1937 (Lepidoptera Zygaenoidea: Chrysopolomidae) with the description of a new species, pp. 51-62 in Zootaxa 5168 (1) on page 54, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5168.1.4, http://zenodo.org/record/6876372