Haplopacha Aurivillius 1905
Creators: name: Dupont, Steen
name: Simonsen, Thomas J.
name: Zilli, Alberto
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Lepidoptera
Lasiocampidae
Haplopacha

description: Haplopacha Aurivillius, 1905
Haplopacha Aurivilius, 1905. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1905: 323. Type species: Haplopacha cinerea Aurivillius, 1905, by monotypy.
Diagnosis. Aurivillius (1905: 323) described Haplopacha as: “A very distinct genus, allied to Chondrostega and Chondrostegoides, but differing from both in vein 8 of fore-wing being emitted from the long stalk of 9 and 10 and vein 8 of hind-wing not anastomosing from base with the cell, but forming a narrow precostal cell”.
Based on the new material and the specimens available at the NHM London, we can now provide a more detailed description and diagnosis. However, it is first necessary to mention that in the wing venation as described and illustrated by Aurivillius (1905) vein Rs1 appears to be missing. In reality, Rs1-Rs2 share a long common stalk and separate close to the wing apex in all specimens studied (Fig. 3 and above). All species can readily be recognised by the subterminal, transverse row of black dots (9–10 depending on species) on forewing, and the dark, metallic forewing spots. The fore- and mid legs are concolorous with the thorax, with tarsal segments 2–5 iridescent black. The hind legs are paler brown, more closely matching the colour of the hind wing than the mottled one of thorax. The genus is easily distinguished from the overall similar Chondrostega Lederer, 1858 and Chondrostegoides Aurivillius, 1905 by the presence of the distal spurs on mid- and hind tibiae.
Haplopacha cinerea Aurivillius, 1905
Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1905: 324.
Type (s): holotype ♂, in NHM.
Type locality: Rhodesia, Sebakwe.
Material examined. 5 specimens: Holotype, male (Fig. 1 A) (BMNH (E)_1378811, NHM London, dissected but genitalia missing), Rhodesia, Sebakwe.
Male (Fig. 1 B) (BMNH(E)_1377238, NHM London, genitalia from collection slide: Lasiocampidae #105 (Fig. 6 A), Transvaal, Lydenburg, coll. Distant. Male (Fig. 1 C) (BMNH(E)_1377239, NHM London, genitalia from collection slide: Lasiocampidae #1141 (Fig. 6 B)), [South Africa], Noord Kaap, Barberton, 16.10.[19]1909, G.W.Jeffery [leg.]. Female (Fig. 1 D) (BMNH(E)_1377240, NHM London, Tams dry genitalia dissection (1955/ 795) mounted on slide: Lasiocampidae #1571 (Fig. 7 A)). S Africa, Transvaal, Sabie Bridge, 10.x.1931. Female (NHRS), S. Rhodesia, Sebakwe, D. Dods 1901 (abdomen missing).
Diagnosis. The triangulate forewings that are beige grey and have 10 submarginal dots as well as an oval basal wing spot are characteristic of H. cinerea. Although H. lunata also has a triangulate grey forewing, its crescent shaped discal wing spot clearly sets these two species apart.
Distribution and localities (Fig. 8): Except for the type specimen all other specimens are from South Africa, including Traansvaal Lydenburg, Sabie and Noord Kaap.
Flight period. Collection dates are only known for two of the South African specimens and both were collected in the first half of October.
Redescription. Original description by Aurivillius (1905, pp 324) reads:“♂. Cinereous grey; fore-wing with two obsolete transverse fuscous lines or shades, a dark dot at end of cell and a submarginal series of black dots; hind-wing on both sides and fore-wing below unicolorous fuscous grey. Antenna with the branches yellowishbrown. Expanse 26 mm ”.
The original description above includes only the wing pattern and a comment on the bifurcation and colouration of the antenna. Our observations on the holotype and the three additional specimens allows us to extend the description with more accurate wing pattern characteristics as well as male and female genitalia characters. Forewing pale beige-grey, triangulate with straight costa, and 10 submarginal dots without distinct white inner margins. Antemedial and postmedial lines jagged and distinctly creating a median field which spans whole width of wing. Basal wing spot approximate oval with major axis parallel to costa. Hind wing brown with slightly lighter postmedial fascia.
Male genitalia (Fig. 6 A,B): Vinculum narrow and undifferentiated. Valve with short lobe-like cucullus, this tapered distally and longest superiorly, set high on vinculum-tegumen ring on level with gnathos, with dense covering of long filiform scales. Dorsal margin of cucullus straight and parallel to basal portion of ventral margin, which in turn extends at least half the width of cucullus. Sacculus extends into a saccular process as far as tip of cucullus, forming a sclerotized triangulate claw with minute spines. Saccular process approximately 2/ 3 in length of whole sacculus and with sparse covering of setae. Uncus heavily sclerotized and spatulate. Gnathos broadly rounded and sclerotized. Phallus broad and rounded at base in lateral view, tapering into sharp apex; in dorsal view its base (coecum) appears rounded, widening towads middle of phallus, which truncates into a rounded tongue corresponding to its distal third. Vesica bulbous, with an oval patch of curved, distally oriented cornuti.
Female genitalia (Fig. 7 A): Abdominal segments VII–VIII weakly sclerotized. Sternum VIII sclerotized caudad of ostium bursae, with distal margin forming a transverse ridge with squared indent. The transverse ridge protrudes to such an extent that it overlays ostium bursae, this not wider than ¼ of width of segment VIII. Antrum narrow subrectangular, ridged and fairly sclerotized. Corpus bursae missing from the dissected specimen. Papillae anales small, rounded and adpressed, facing outwards. Anterior and posterior apophyses similar, undifferentiated long and narrow, approximately 1.5x the length of segment VIII.
Notes. The single female specimen without an abdomen in the NHRS is from the type locality and, according to the label, collected four years before Aurivillius described H. cinerea. Since Aurivillius was based at the NHRS, it is reasonable to ask whether this specimen in fact represents a syntype. However, the original description ends with the statement: “A single, rather badly damaged specimen” (Aurivillius 1905, p. 324). It is clear that Aurivillius only used the single male specimen as the basis for the description, and the specimen in NHRS cannot be considered a type.
description: Published as part of Dupont, Steen, Simonsen, Thomas J. & Zilli, Alberto, 2016, Haplopacha (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae) reviewed: four new species, first descriptions of the genitalia of both sexes, and unique alar scale organs, pp. 445-457 in Zootaxa 4109 (4) on pages 447-450, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4109.4.3, http://zenodo.org/record/265859