Magnificus Yan 2000
Creators: name: Grehan, John R.
name: Mielke, Carlos G. C.
name: Minet, Joël
name: Ignatev, Nikolai
name: Buchsbaum, Ulf
name: Xue, Dayong
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Hepialidae
Magnificus

description: Monophyly of Magnificus
Although the range FW patterns of Magnificus species are all distinct from other Eurasian genera, this contrast is not definitive as there is no unequivocal difference in wing pattern for the genus as a whole with respect to all other Hepialidae. For example, the female FW pattern of Hepialus humuli (Fig. 8) is superficially similar to that of M. zhiduoensis (Fig. 6) for the submarginal band, while that of Zenophassus schamyl (Christoph, 1888) (Fig. 9) is reminiscent of Magnificus dirschi (Fig. 2). But two features are identified here as unambiguously supporting the monophyly of Magnificus, i.e. they do not conflict with other derived character similarities within the Hepialidae and appear to be unique to the genus. A third characteristic is also potentially informative pending future studies. The three features are: (i) shape of the abdominal tergosternal sclerite, (ii) the structure of the pseudoteguminal arms of the male genitalia and (iii) the shape of the lamella antevaginalis of the female genitalia. These features are individually discussed below.
(i) Tergosternal sclerite. The anterio-abdominal tergosternal sclerite is a triple junction between the anterior lateral margins of sternite II, the junction of Tergites I and II, and the posterior edge of the metathorax (Fig. 23i). The sclerite comprises a dorsal ‘brace’ that forms a right-angled bend between the anterior tergal brace connecting with the posterior thorax, and a dorsal brace that is aligned along the anterior margin of tergite II. Ventral to the brace is a central-posterior ‘intermediate zone’ that varies in size from a broad triangular region to being indistinct from the tergosternal bar that extends between the lateral arms of sternum II to the anterior or central region of the lateral posterior to the first spiracle of the abdomen (Fig. 23i). The tergosternal bar may merge with the intermediate zone or be partially distinct. In Magnificus the tergosternal sclerites was observed for only two species (Figs 22 a-b), but these are similar to each other and they are considered representative of the genus as the shape of this structure is consistent for other recognized monophyletic genera or larger clades (Grehan 2012a).
The tergosternal sclerite of Magnificus comprises a sub-parallel, crescent shaped, tergosternal bar that is continuous with the intermediate zone and fused to the edge of the corner between the lateral and dorsal brace. The posterior margin of the intermediate zone comprises a distinct corner or angle between a straight posteriorly angled dorsal edge and an anteriorly oriented ventral edge extending to the lateral arm of sternum II. The dorsal edge has darker shading that may represent an internal extension of the structure resulting in a darker texture from the external view. Comparison with other genera (cf. Grehan 2012a, Grehan & Mielke 2018a, 2019a, 2020; Grehan et al. 2019; Mielke & Grehan 2016a, 2017, Mielke et al. 2019) indicate that the tergosternal sclerite shape in Magnificus is unique within the Hepialidae and therefore supports monophyly of the genus, and there is no evidence of any specialized shared similarity with the northern Eurasian sister group (as illustrated here for Hepialus humuli, Fig. 23k).
(ii) Pseudoteguminal arms. At the posterio-ventral junction of the pseudotegumen margin either side of the anogenital field each pseudotegumen plate may also be produced into a ‘pseudoteguminal arm’ of variable length in the Hepialidae. In Magnificus the arms are connected across the median to form a broad, ventrally open tube or channel. This formation is not always visible in slide mounted material as with M. bouvieri (Fig. 10). The structure is visible in an unmounted specimen of M. roseus (Fig. 13b) but not in the compressed holotype slide (Fig. 13a). The channel is visible in the dissections of Magnificus regius (Figs 12a. b. c). The structure may be inferred for the slide mount of M. dirschi (Fig. 11). Further study of this character is required. The only other genus we have seen anything similar is Hepialus (see discussion below).
(iii) Lamella antevaginalis. The female the shape of the lamella antevaginalis in Magnificus appears to be distinct with respect to its dorso-ventrally shallow sub-rectangular shape without dorsal development of the lateral lobes and minimal development of the central lobe. However, the structural details are insufficiently clear in the available dissections, and published diagrams for two other species are too generalized to fully characterize the lamella antevaginalis of Magnificus with respect to other Hepialidae. Full corroboration of this character state for Magnificus will require more detailed documentation for the genus.
description: Published as part of Grehan, John R., Mielke, Carlos G. C., Minet, Joël, Ignatev, Nikolai, Buchsbaum, Ulf & Xue, Dayong, 2021, Taxonomic composition and monophyly of the genus Magnificus (Lepidoptera Hepialoidea: Hepialidae), pp. 339-358 in Zootaxa 4920 (3) on pages 351-353, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4920.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/4478051