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

description: procera (Boisduval, [1875])
(Figs. 6A–C)
“ C. PROCERA. Boisd.” Boisduval, [1875], Species générale des Lépidoptères Hétérocères. Tome premier: Sphingides, Sésiides, Castnides: 503.
Type material: Described from a single female which was a gift from M. de l’Orza (Fig. 6B). It bears the labels: Procera Bd / Mexiq, Castnia Procera / Bdv. (ex coll. Bdv.) / Mexique, ex coll. / Ch. Oberthür, and 10. C. procera / Mexico. This specimen is the holotype by monotypy and is now in NHMUK.
Type locality: Boisduval states that Monsieur Paul de l’Orza received the type specimen from Guatemala, however, the type is in NHMUK and is clearly labelled “ Mexico ”. González (2008) listed it from that country based on this specimen. To our knowledge, the species has never been found as far north as Mexico and this is confirmed by local collectors who do not consider it to be a Mexican species (Jesús García pers. comm.), neither are there any recent records from Guatemala. The type locality is therefore in doubt.
Taxonomic status: A valid species of Amauta. It was originally described as a species by Boisduval ([1875]) but treated as a subspecies of A. cacica by Miller (1995) and Lamas (1995). It is here restored as a valid species, stat. rest.
Male genitalia: (Fig. 4A) Uncus simple, with a quadrate apex, as moderately sclerotized as the gnathos apophysis and the integument. Gnathos sclerotised, bifid anteriad and excavate. Cucullus and valvula slightly rounded and pointed ventrally, with ventral margin slightly concave. Sacculus not prominent. Distal section of phallus about four times the length of coecum and as wide as this at junction and basally, then slightly tapered up to the beginning of its middle section. From here to the apex, the phallus is of uniform width (very slightly tapered), except for the presence of two protuberances, one, at the beginning of the subterminal section and pointing to the exterior of the phallus. The second protuberance points towards the coecum and is present in the middle section between the first protuberance and the apex of the phallus. Small vesical protrusions may be noticed at the apex. Such a genitalia configuration, and specifically the phallus, has more similarities with angusta than with nominotypical cacica (see angusta and cacica above).
Distribution: There are many records of this subspecies from Costa Rica (Limón, Cartago and Puntarenas provinces) and Panama (all known records are from Chiriquí province), and very few from Honduras and Nicaragua, but none that we would consider reliable from any other countries. Houlbert (1918) mentions it from Guatemala collected in “Polochic Valley, San Juan” (which is probably Finca San Juan in Senahú, Alta Verapaz). Rothschild (1919) confirms that at the Tring Museum (now in NHMUK) there is “ 1♀, [from] Guatemala [collected by Osbert] Salvin” and it was originally in “Coll. Felder” (González & Hernández-Baz 2012); this specimen cannot be found in NHMUK. There is another male in NHMUK, ex Lehman coll., which has a printed label “ C. procera Mexico ”, but this appears to be a cabinet label showing the name of the species and the type locality and is not considered to be a locality label. We have seen specimens which appear to represent this subspecies labelled “ Mexico ”, “ Guatemala ”, and even “ Brazil ” but without any more precise data. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, these must be considered unreliable (Fig. 13).
Discussion: This taxon has long been treated as a subspecies of Amauta cacica to which it is superficially similar, but comparison of the male genitalia shows that is clearly a separate species by the configuration of uncus, tegumen, valva, vinculum and phallus. The principal differences in wing pattern from A. cacica are that cacica usually has the forewing discal spot outlined in white whereas in procera it is only black, and procera usually only has four orange extradiscal spots on the hindwing whereas cacica always has five. Also, procera is on average larger than cacica.
Material examined: For this study, as well as the holotype, we have examined 13 males and 11 females from Panama, 19 males and 17 females from Costa Rica, and 32 males and 10 females for which we do not have locality data. We have also studied 7 males and 3 females from other Central American countries as follows: HONDURAS: 1♂ CURLA Camp 8km W 5km S La Ceiba, Rio Bonito, Atlántida, 150m., 15° 42’ 05.84”N 86° 50’ 48.76”W, 1/VI/2002, F. Martínez (CURLA); 1♂ Estación CURLA, Rio Bonito, Atlántida, 175m., 15° 42’N 86° 51’W, 30/ IX/2001, F. Martínez (EAPZ); 1♂ Centro ambiental Los Planes (Cascada), Meambar, Comayagua, 500m., 25/ IV/1997, G Borjas; 1♀ no data (UNAH); 1♂ Atlantida 12 km W. of La Ceiba, Pico Bonito 250 m, VII-1986, R Lehman leg. NICARAGUA: 1♂ Eden, 14° 0’N 84° 26’W, Th. W. Bouchelle, V-IX-1992 (ANS); 1♂ idem; 1♂ Great Falls, PisPis River, 10miles NW Eden, Wharton Huber, V-6-1922; 1♀ idem V-2-1922; 1♀ Cerro Kilambe, Regreso 4, 1404m, 10/17.V.98, J. M. Maes & B. Hernández (MEL).
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 333-334, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442