Castnia hoppi
Creators: name: Worthy, Robert
name: González, Jorge M.
name: Zilli, Alberto
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Castniidae
Castnia
Castnia hoppi

description: hoppi (Hering, 1923)
(Figs. 11H, I)
“ Castnia (Cyanostola) hoppi Mart. Hering sp.n. ” Hering, 1923, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift “ Iris ” 37 (1/2): 17–18.
Type material: The taxon was described from a single male, which is the holotype by monotypy. Gerardo Lamas (pers. comm.) has investigated this and provided the following information: there is a specimen in ETHZ which has an orange “Type” label, like many types in MfN, which has long been regarded as the type. This specimen was apparently sold by Bang-Haas to Biedermann in 1927 and carries another label reading “ Castnia / hoppi m typus! ♂ / det Mart Hering, which is typical of Hering labels in MfN. It also has a label reading “Buenavista, Barbacoas / Westküste, 900mtr. / Colombia / 15 Juli 22.”; as the type was collected at 700m. in 1921 this is not likely to be the type. There is a specimen in MfN, which does not bear a Type label, but has a hand-written label in very faint pencil which is only just legible, reading “Buenavista / 700mt / 13 Juli 1921 ”, it also carries a printed green label reading “Columbien / Dr. A. Scultze (sic!) S. G.”, this last label is probably spurious as it was Werner Hopp who collected the specimen, not Dr Schultze. As Hering used to work in Berlin, we assume that this MfN specimen is the true type and that Hering misread the date from the label when he mentioned “15 Juli” in the description. It is very possible that the determination labels were switched between the specimen now in MfN and that in ETHZ. There are also three males in NHMUK which have been provided with cotype or paratype labels by some misguided past curator, these are all from Rio Micay so cannot be types.
Type locality: Given by Hering (1923) as “Colombien, West-küste; Buena visto (sic), am 15. Juli 1921 in 700 m Höhe gef”. Buenavista is in Barbacoas municipality in Nariño department in south-west Colombia.
Taxonomic status: A subspecies of Divana diva (Butler, 1870). Originally described as a species, treated as a subspecies of tricolor by Miller (1995), Lamas (1995) sunk both tricolor and hoppi to subspecies of diva, an arrangement we follow.
Male genitalia: (Fig. 5D) As in Divana diva diva, the uncus of diva hoppi is shortened in relation to the tegumen. The latter is not as rounded, but socii are also weakly developed. Subscaphium slightly sclerotised basad, and membranous distad. Gnathos is recurved and moderately sclerotised. Valvae are lobate, with numerous setae (not shown in drawing), and shorter when compared with diva diva. Sacculus is also weakly developed with a large setal tuft (not shown in drawing). Saccus blunt. Phallus as in nominotypical subspecies, with distal section stouter, more incrassate and contorted. Vesica spontaneously everted in our preparation, bearing minute spinous cornuti. Even though the male genitalia of diva hoppi is slightly different from diva diva (Figs. 5A, B), it is easy to see that they have a close resemblance. They differ from those of typical Telchin (Figs. 5E, F).
Distribution: This is the south-western subspecies of Divana diva. All Colombian specimens have been collected on the western slopes of the Western Cordillera, with records from Valle del Cauca, Cauca and Nariño departments (Vinciguerra 2010; J. Salazar, pers. comm.). This cordillera continues south into the Western Cordillera of Ecuador; all the Ecuadorian specimens have been collected west of this cordillera in Esmeraldas and Carchi provinces (Fig. 16).
Discussion: Although it was originally thought that hoppi was an endemic subspecies from south-west Colombia, the advent of reliable north-western Ecuadorian specimens quickly changed such a notion (Vinciguerra 2011). Unfortunately, not much is known of the species, and this subspecies is even more mysterious.
Material examined: 24 males and 8 females were examined for this study. As well as the “type”, we have examined COLOMBIA: 2♂ Kolumb, Rio Micai – Joly, 23.5- 18.6.1924, Werner Hopp [one of these specimens bears a Bang-Haas co-type label but cannot be a type because of the collecting locality, it also has labels stating it was determined and dissected by J.Y. Miller]; 1♂ Rio Micay, (Rio Dagua), ex Joicey [this specimen bears spurious cotype and paratype labels]; 1♂ Micay, 400mts, Januar 1925, ex Joicey [this specimen also bears a spurious paratype label]; 1♀ Rio Dagua, ex Kruger 5/3/1929 (NHMUK); 1♂ Tatabro, 200 m., 12.X.1994, leg. L M Constantino; 1♂ Alto Anchicayá, 800 m., 28.XII.1987, leg. L M Constantino; 1♀ idem, 15.I.1988 (LC). ECUADOR: 1♂ Auambi, VI/2013; 2♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, VIII/2012; 1♂ idem, X/2015; 1♀ idem, VII/2014; 1♀ idem, 10/II/2016 (DC); 3♂♂ Rio Chuchuvi, Lita via San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, October 2017; 1♂ idem, April 2016; 1♂ idem, June 2016; 2♂♂ idem, 800 mts., May 2017; 1♂ idem, July 2016; 1♂ Durango, Lita via San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, 500mts., April 2009; 1♂ Rio Mera, Sabolera, Carchi, 450mts., June 2014 (HG); 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, 11/VIII/2009 (RV); 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, VI/2013; 1♂ idem, VIII/2013; 1♂ idem, 550m, IX/2013; 1♀ idem, V/2015; 1♀ idem, 800m, IV/2013 (RW).
description: Published as part of Worthy, Robert, González, Jorge M. & Zilli, Alberto, 2022, A review of the genera Amauta Houlbert, 1918 and Divana J. Y. Miller, 1982 (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) with description of a new genus, pp. 301-342 in Zootaxa 5194 (3) on pages 328-329, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442