Gnopharmia colchidaria subsp. colchidaria Lederer
Creators: name: Sh, Hossein Rajaei
name: Stüning, Dieter
name: Trusch, Robert
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2012
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Geometridae
Gnopharmia
Gnopharmia colchidaria
Gnopharmia colchidaria colchidaria (lederer)

description: Gnopharmia colchidaria colchidaria (Lederer)
(Figs 5, 6, 7, 37 & 46; Map 1A, 1B)
Gnophos colchidaria Lederer, 1870: 48, pl. 2, fig. 1. Holotype Ƥ, coll. Staudinger, MNHU (examined). Type locality: Helenendorf [Göygöl, (Geugoel), West Azerbaijan], SE Caucasus (but see “Taxonomic note”).
Gnopharmia colchidaria colchidaria: Staudinger, 1892: 181; Staudinger, 1901: 343; Prout, 1915: 384, pl. 22a; Wehrli, 1953: 565; Parsons et al., 1999: 406.
Gnopharmia colchidaria melanotaenia Wehrli, 1938: 433, syn. nov.
Syntypes 8 3, 9 Ƥ, coll. ZISP, ZFMK (examined). Type locality: Migry (=Meghri) and Dzhuga [distr. Dzhulfa], Arax river, Armenia, S. Caucasus. Lectotype 3 designated here.
Gnopharmia colchidaria melanotaenia: Wehrli, 1953: 565, pl. 47d; Parsons et al., 1999: 406.
Type material examined. Holotype Ƥ of colchidaria, ‘Helenendorf’ [Göygöl, West Azarbaijan] [1870], ‘Origin’, ‘ colchidaria ’, ‘GloblnG specimen ID: 0021’, ‘gen. prep. 408/2009 H. R.’, ‘ G. colchidaria (Lederer, 1870) | det. H. R., 2009’; in coll. Staudinger in MNHU. Lectotype 3 of melanotaenia, (examined, hereby designated in order to stabilize nomenclature): ‘18 | 46’, ‘Migry, | Armenia | 6.VII.1931 ’ [= Meghri, prov. Syunik, Armenia, close to the Iranian border], ‘ Gnopharmia colchidaria det. Rjabov, 3, Type’, ‘ Gnopharmia colchidaria melanotaenia Wehrli, 3, Holotype’, ‘gen. prep. 415/2008 H. R.’, ‘ G. c o l c h i d a r i a (Lederer, 1870) | det. H. R., 2009’ [specimen labelled as “ holotype ” after description by Wehrli]. In coll. ZFMK at present, but will be transferred to ZISP, as announced by Wehrli (1938: 434). Paralectotype Ƥ, ‘18 | 49’, ‘Migry, | Armenia | 6.VII.1931 ’, ‘ Gnopharmia colchidaria melanotaenia Wehrli, Ƥ, ‘Allotype’, ‘gen. prep. 416/2008 H. R.’, ‘ G. colchidaria (Lederer, 1870) | det. H. R., 2009’, [specimen labelled subsequently as “Allotype” by Wehrli]. In coll. ZFMK at present, but will also be transferred to ZISP. Further paralectotypes: 6 3, 8 Ƥ, Russ. Armenien, Migry, 6.VII., 8.VII. [1]931, leg. M. Rjabov, 3 gen. preps 911, 924 & 925, SEM preparation nos 16 & 17, Ƥ gen. preps 887, 888 & 889, SEM preparation nos 18 & 33/2010 H. R., Wehrli gen. prep. no. 7218; 1 3, Transkauk., fl. Arax, distr. Dzhulfa, pr. Dzhuga, 27.VI.32, M. Rjabov, Wehrli gen. prep. no. 7222; in coll. ZFMK and ZISP (1 3, 1 Ƥ). Additional material studied: 38 3, 13 Ƥ (see appendix).
Description. Wings and body (Figs 5–7). Frons moderately extended, distally rounded, with a weak central protrusion. Genae antero-ventrally with an acute process. Free apical flagellomeres in male antennae 12. Spine of fore tibia short (fig. 2c), triangular, without acute tip. Wingspan 24–26 mm, ground colour of wings light brown. Forewing with antemedial, medial and postmedial line represented by a few brown spots, most conspicuous those on costa. Postmedial incurved in the middle, sometimes the spots connected by a narrow, orange line. Space between postmedial and the light, strongly dentate submarginal line coloured dark grey, forming a distinct band. Marginal area often like medial and basal area, but more often darker, being strongly striated dark grey. Always a light apical patch present. Hindwings with two transverse lines only, also represented by a few dots, the basal one sometimes as a short, continuous line. Submarginal area like in fore wings. Under side with basal two thirds greyish-white and a well-bordered dark grey submarginal band in which the pale creamy forewing apical spot is clearly visible. Discal dots large and clear on under side, but also conspicuous on upperside. Variation. Frequently darkened specimens occur which are transitional to the extremely dark female holotype (fig. 5). The two specimens mentioned by Wehrli (1953: 565) have the hindwings completely dusted with grey, but the forewings still show remnants of the lighter ground colour (fig. 7b). Other specimens (e.g. two males from Khosrov reserve, Armenia, Sept. 1997) also have the forewings heavily dusted with grey and three females of the same locality are completely dark grey, like or even somewhat darker than the female holotype. Also reddish specimens may occur, resembling G. r u b r a r i a (fig. 7c; three males, Armenia, Negram and Darasham). Male genitalia and pre-genital abdomen (fig. 37). Proximal tooth-like projections of sacculus larger than distal ones. Aedeagus long (1.4–1.8 mm), with a small ventral fin almost at middle (i.e. coecum penis very long). Distal subapical spines absent, proximal subapical spines present, arranged in a curved row, consisting of 2–3 (rarely up to 5) cone-shaped spines, increasing in size towards apex (maximum length 0.15 mm). Cornuti on the vesica minute, 2–3 basally fused, very small spines. Sternite A8 with octavals long (0.4–0.5 mm) and slender.
Diagnosis. As described above, G. colchidaria colchidaria is a very variable subspecies and may be easily mistaken with other subspecies or species of the genus, recognizing external appearance only. Geographical distribution gives a good hint for the start, as c. colchidaria is the only (sub-) species known to occur in S. Caucasus region. However, it also occurs in E. Turkey and NW. Iran, approaching the areas of other taxa like G. rubraria and that of its own subspecies G. colchidaria sinesefida. Moreover, G. irakensis is known to be a very widespread species which also has been found in E. Turkey and may be found in S. Caucasus. The male genitalia provide useful characters to distinguish these species and subspecies. G. colchidaria sinesefida whose range of distribution also reaches NW. Iran (see map 1), shares some characters with c. colchidaria (e.g. size and shape of aedeagus and general form of valva and its ornamentations). Diagnostic characters to distinguish both are: more broadly rounded sacculus (rather narrow in c. sinesefida), with proximal tooth-like projection narrow and sharply pointed (rather stout and rounded in c. sinesefida); proximal subapical spines of aedeagus are arranged in a curved row reaching from ventral side of aedeagus up to dorsal side (a straight row situated more dorsally in c. sinesefida); distal subapical spines absent (at least one spine present in c. sinesefida); cornuti 2–3 very small, basally fused spines (a rather large group of 3–4 composite spines in c. sinesefida) (figs 36-c, 37-c). Octavals in G. c. colchidaria are slightly longer and narrower than those in G. c. sinesefida (figs 36-d, 37-d).
G. kasrunensis and G. irakensis are easily distinguished by the very long proximal subapical spines in both species (short, cone-shaped in G. c. colchidaria), the extremely broad sacculus in irakensis (fig. 39-a), with toothlike projections differing strongly in size (distal one reduced), the small, tooth-like projections of the same size in kasrunensis (fig. 41-a). In irakensis the ventral fin of the aedeagus is absent (fig. 39) (present in colchidaria and all other species). The octavals are more rounded at the tip and not curved (strongly curved in kasrunensis; fig. 41-d). Differential characters to G. rubraria see under the latter species. Barcoding results indicate that the taxa colchidaria (+ melanotaenia), sinesefida and objectaria (+ degeneraria) are conspecific (maximum pairwise distances less than 1.1%) and we treat them here as subspecies of one species, colchidaria Lederer. But according to their differences in morphology, geographic distribution and biology (as far as known), they are rather well separated. They could also be considered as sister-species or species ‘in statu nascendi’ which have not yet been isolated for sufficient time to be significantly diverged at the CO1 gene. Especially G. colchidaria colchidaria is separated from the other two subspecies by a number of rather distinctive characters (shape of frons, short tibial spines (fig. 2-c), arrangement of proximal subapical spines on aedeagus, geographical range and different food plant) which, at an earlier state of this paper and without having obtained the barcoding results, led us to treat colchidaria as a distinct species.
Taxonomic notes. The description of G. c o l c h i d a r i a (Lederer, 1870) was based on one female specimen only, the type locality stated as “Achalziche”. Already Staudinger (1892: 181) mentioned that this type, which he received together with the whole Lederer collection, was labelled “Helenendorf” (in Lederers handwriting). Achalziche (Achalzich, Akhalzikhe) is situated in SW Georgia, “Helenendorf” (renamed Khanlar or Hanlar in 1938 and again in 2008 to the present Göygöl or Geugoel) (Zolotuhin, Oct. 2011 in litt.) in Azerbaijan, far away from each other. However, both localities are mentioned frequently in the paper of Lederer and probably he just confounded them. The very detailed description in French (the short Latin one is rough) agrees exactly with the type specimen which also Wehrli (1953: 565) studied and accepted as such. The female holotype is a dark, almost melanic specimen with only a few pattern elements left on upperside (see fig. 5). Males have not been collected together with the female holotype, but we examined various populations from Azerbaijan, Armenia (including the type material of “ssp.” melanotaenia Wehrli) and the northwestern border of Iran, which all showed high similarity (e.g. arrangement of the subapical spines of the aedeagus, length and shape of the octavals of sternite A8). Finally, it appeared most likely to us that the “ssp.” melanotaenia Wehrli represents the “normal” or most common appearance of the species colchidaria, with females predominantly very similar to males. However, there are two females from the type locality of melanotaenia -already mentioned by Wehrli, l. c.-which are transitional to the melanic female holotype and another three females from Khosrov, Armenia which are even darker and almost unicolorous.
Life history and habitat. The biology of G. colchidaria colchidaria is unknown. In the light of the fact that G. colchidaria sinesefida from Iran has been found to be monophagous on Prunus (Amygdalus) scoparia (Rajaei 2010, as ‘ colchidaria ’), and the distribution of G. c. c o l c h i d a r i a is highly congruent with the distribution of Prunus (Amygdalus) fenzliana Fritsch (Rosaceae; cf. Browicz & Zieniński 1984), we assume the latter may be the host plant. G. c. colchidaria has been collected on 24th of May (Elazig, Turkey) as the earliest and on 13th of September (Khosrov reserve, Armenia) as the latest.
Distribution (Map 1A). The nominate subspecies of G. colchidaria is distributed in Armenia, Azerbaijan, East Turkey (new record) and also along the north-western border of Iran. Records of elevation are between 200 and 2400 m a.s.l.
MAP1. Distribution patterns of G. colchidaria colchidaria, G. c. objectaria and G. c. sinesefida A. Map section (S. Caucasus): 1. Dzhuga [Dzhulfa]; 2. Ordubad; 3. Meghri (Migri, Megri) (type locality of G. c o l c h i d a r i a melanotaenia); 4. Goris; 5. Helenendorf (Göygöl), W Azerbaijan (type locality of G. c o l c h i d a r i a); 6. Achalziche (type locality of G. c o l c h i d a r i a according to Lederer, 1870: 39)
B. Map: 7. Ashkhabad, Akhal-Tekke region (type locality of G. colchidaria var. objectaria and G. c o l c h i d a r i a var. degeneraria); 8. Mardin (locality of the female paralectotype of G. c o l c h i d a r i a var. objectaria); 9. Herat (type locality of G. i n e r m i s); 10. Jussufabad (type locality of G. inermis vartianae and G. maculifera kasyi); 11. Arghandab river (type locality of G. eberti); 12. Sine Sefid, Fars, S. Iran (type locality of G. sinesefida).
description: Published as part of Sh, Hossein Rajaei, Stüning, Dieter & Trusch, Robert, 2012, Taxonomic revision and zoogeographical patterns of the species of Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892 (Geometridae, Ennominae), pp. 1-52 in Zootaxa 3360 on pages 9-11, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.214977