Melitaea phoebe subsp. abbas , Gross & Ebert 1975
Creators: name: Russell, Peter J. C.
name: Lukhtanov, Vladimir A.
name: Tennent, W. John
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Nymphalidae
Melitaea
Melitaea phoebe
M. phoebe abbas gross &amp; ebert, 1975

description: M. phoebe abbas Gross & Ebert, 1975
[TL: 50 km NW Ardekan, Tange-Surkh, Iran, 2250 m]: junior subjective synonym of Melitaea enoch Higgins, 1941 (syn. nov.). The synonymy of abbas with M. enoch is based on the very close similarity of the wing morphology of the two holotypes (see figs 17A & B and 16A & B, respectively) and the fact that Tóth et al. (2016) could find no genetic differences between the taxon abbas from the northern (where M. enoch is found) and southern populations.
The original description (Gross & Ebert 1975: 44) indicated the presence of a holotype male, an allotype female and 9 male paratypes. The holotype (Figs 17A, B, C) and six male paratypes are present in the Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe (Hesselbarth et al. 1995:1031) and an allotype female (Figs 18A, B, C) and a paratype male are present in the Hayk Mirzayans Insect Museum, Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Teheran, Iran. This was confirmed by Alipanah (2016: 200), who stated that Tange-Surkh is a misspelling of Tang-e Sorkh and Ardekan is currently known as Sepidân. Of the remaining two males, one is deposited in the Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig in Bonn, Germany and the other in Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe (SMNK), Germany. Recent research by Tóth et al. (2014, 2016), indicated that the taxon abbas should be elevated to species level. There was no label on the pin of the allotype to indicate its status, this has been rectified and its current specific identification noted (Fig. 18 C).
There is some muddle in the figures of this species under the name M. telona abbas presented by van Oorschot and Coutsis (2014: plate 13 figs 11, 12, 13 & 16); their figure 16 correctly shows the holotype in SMNK; however the captions for the specimens (numbers 1463–1465) in figures 11–13 indicate firstly that they are all female and secondly that they are housed in the SMNK (van Oorschot & Coutsis (2014: 167); figure 13 does appear to be a female but figures 11 and 12 appear to be males. There are no female paratypes among the specimens in SMNK, the allotype and only female is in the Teheran museum (see above) and was taken at the same locality but on 16.6.1972 (see our fig. 19C). The two male specimens illustrated were taken apparently on 16 June 1972 and 12–15 June 1975 (van Oorschot & Coutsis (2014: 167). These dates exactly match those on two of the labels on the pins of paratype specimens in SMNK, but those specimens do not appear to match the specimens figured by van Oorschot & Coutsis (2014: plate 13 figs 11 & 12), the two males illustrated have differently orientated antennae and wing sections missing which do not match any specimens in the collection of paratypes in the SMNK. Neither John Coutsis nor the present authors are able to explain this discrepancy.
description: Published as part of Russell, Peter J. C., Lukhtanov, Vladimir A. & Tennent, W. John, 2022, Reassessment of the status of some European and Asian Melitaea taxa described as subspecies of Melitaea phoebe ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775), with designations of lectotypes where appropriate (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), pp. 25-38 in Zootaxa 5141 (1) on page 33, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5141.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/6577627