Magnificus regius Grehan & Mielke & Minet & Ignatev & Buchsbaum & Xue 2021, comb. n.
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
Magnificus regius

description: Magnificus regius (Staudinger, 1896) comb. n.
(Figs 4 a–e, 12a–c, 18, 22b, 23a, 23e, 23j)
Hepialus regius Staudinger (1896: 301)
Phassus regius: Wagner & Pfitzner (1911: 18).— Pfitzner (1912: 438, pl.[1], Fig. 54b).
Sthenopis regius: Tindale (1941: 42, pl. viii, Fig. 70).— Nielsen et al. (2000: 850).
Phassus regues (Chu & Wang 1985a: 299)
Hepialus regius rubellus: Bang-Hass (1939: 58)
Sthenopis rubellus (Bang-Hass, 1939): Nielsen et al. (2000: 850); as a synonymy of M. regius
Material examined: In total 3 ♂, 1 ♀: Lectotype ♂, [China], Kansu [recte Gansu,] Liang Tschou, 2,500 m, VII, / ESN 2485 / Type O.B. - Haas / Lectotype ♂ Phasus [sic] regius rubellus B.H. designated by E.S. Nielsen, ZSBS, (Fig. 4b); 1 ♂, China, Richthohen-Gebirge, Liang Tschou, VII-VIII.1940, M. Dirsch leg., ZSBS (Fig. 4c); 1 ♂, [China], Gansu, Liang Tschou, 2,500 m (MWM) (Fig. 4d); 1 ♀ [China], Kansu [recte Gansu], occ. Liang tschou, Richthofen mont. Mar. 2,500 m, VII, dissection ESN2875, MfN (Fig. 4e).
Original description of Hepialus regius (Staudinger 1896): “FW markings reminiscent of Hepialus valleda [Korscheltellus fusconebulosa (De Geer)] while the otherwise dark hindwings are coloured carmine-red in their basal inner rim like no other species. One female measures 63 mm, the other 67 mm, so they have the size of Hepialus humuli (Linnaeus), but wider wings. FW are a dirty brown-grey with dark brown, white-rimmed, partly goldcovered spots and an irregularly curved, light-grey band in front of the outer edge, forked at the front edge. These markings are best illustrated by the good illustration of the most strongly marked female. In the other female they do not appear so clearly for, the spots on the inner edge and disc are partly missing completely, other markings are different. The dark basal spot on the front edge is completely missing, the third, very long spot is only half as long and wider, the light forked strip that extends into the apex is narrower and more extinguished (in the female shown on the right forewing it is separated from the light band, connected to it on the left). The large, hammer-shaped, dark spot on the right forewing at the end of the central cell is also smaller and differently shaped on the left, but in the female not shown it is almost completely absent. The shiny metallic golden dusting of the dark spots is very remarkable; in some spots (especially those on the front margin) it is only very slight, in others (especially in the disc) it covers them almost entirely. The underside is similar, but markings completely faded, with no trace of golden dusting. The hindwings in their basal inner half of the depicted female are splendid carmine red, in the other female they are dull (faded) red. Its outer half is dark smoky grey with a marked apex, as is only the case with Hepialus damor Moore from Western India of all the species I have seen. In the apex of regius there is a light, whitish stripe of pots (which in the other female forms a narrow, longer white stripe), in front of it on the front edge there is a darker spot (in the other female, smaller, almost entirely white-edged). The head and thorax are light yellow (grey) brown, the latter is outlined in dark brown on the sides and behind, like the forehead. The very short thread- (bristle-) shaped antennae are light, the chest and feet are dark brown, only the scales of the female shown are coloured red on the outside. The dark brown abdomen is beautiful carmine-red on the first 3–4 segments, below it is dirty-grey. Hepialus regius certainly varies quite a lot, like so many other Hepialus species, the males are perhaps somewhat different from the females, but even the most varied specimens can easily be recognized as belonging to this species (due to the red basal colour of the hindwing).”
Original description for Hepialus regius rubellus Bang-Haas, 1939: “Wingspan: males 48 mm, females 58 mm. Smaller, more vividly coloured than the original form. Upper side of the forewings: the whitish submarginal band is straighter. Upper side of the hind wings: male coloured carmine red, lower central cell vein dusted brownish, female also carmine red, the upper half up to the central cell blackish brown, whitish marginal and submarginal spots in front of the apex.”
Remark s. Originally described by Staudinger (1896) with reference to two female specimens from Xizang, between Lop Noor and Kukunoor, the ‘most strongly marked’ specimen being illustrated (Fig. 4a). These syntypes have not been located in MfN and ZSBS where they were expected to be found. Bang-Haas (1939) subsequently described Phassus regius rubellus as a subspecies but without distinguishing it from the nominal subspecies. The subspecies name rubellus was treated as a junior synonym of regius by Nielsen et al. (2000). Whether S. regius rubellus represents a distinct geographic entity from S. regius regius will require verification through additional population sampling across the distribution range of S. regius. The distribution range of S. regius includes local overlap with S. dirschi (Fig. 31).
The saccus of male genitalia short and narrow, slightly convex lateral edges converging anteriorly as a blunt point. Posterior margin notch in the lectotype of M. regius rubellus does not extend anteriorly into the saccus much beyond the obtuse angle of the lateral margins (Fig. 12) as also in M. dirschi (Fig. 11) and M. jiuzhiensis (Fig. 14) in contrast to M. roseus where the notch extends further into the saccus (Fig. 13a, b).
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 345-346, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4920.3.2, http://zenodo.org/record/4478051