60 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

HESPERIID NOTES

J. W, TILDEN

125 Cedar Lane, San Jose, California 95127

The insect described by Dyar in 1904 as Thorybes mysie has been referred to in the literature a number of times, but very little is known about it due to lack of material. Very few specimens are known.

Tilden (1949) reviewed much of the literature and illustrated a male topotype and the genitalia.

Lindsey (1921) and Lindsey, Bell & Williams (1931) said of mysic, that they did not know this species. It is interesting that Hoffmann (1941) stated (free translation of the Spanish) that mysie is found "From Sonora to the mountains of the Central Valley of Mexico. It ranges up to elevations of about 2500 meters or somewhat more." But on the next page he says of Thorybcs valcriana Ploetz, "I do not know this species."

Evans (1952) synonymized mysic Dyar 1904 with Thorybcs valcriana (Ploetz) 1882, on the basis of a copy of a manuscript figure in the British Museum, and three female specimens in that collection. 1 have not seen these specimens, but they can scarcely be the insect described by Dyar as mysie. Evans was a very careful worker, and he would have noted at once that mY5ic does not fall structurally into Thorybcs as placed by him in Section 2 of the Pyrginae, which has the palpi upturned, the third segment appressed to the face. Mysic falls into Section 3, the palpi more or less porrect, the third scgment protruding beyond the second. Moreover, the antennae of Thorybes are arcuate or hooked. Those of mysic have the apiculus bent at right angles to the club. Mysic is struc­turally similar to caicus Herrich-Schaeffer 1869, which Evans placed in the genus Cogia. Caicus and mysic share with members of the genus Cogia, the form of the antennal apiculus, and the out-of-line position of the apical hyaline spot in space 6 (the lower, or 4th, apical spot).

However, both caicus and mysic have the palpi longer than the head as seen from above, and the males lack the hair pencil at the base of the hind wings which is present in Cogia and is a distinctive feature of that genus. On the basis of these differences, it seems desirable to retain caicus and mysic in another genus than Cogia.

Godman & Salvin (1894) proposed Phocdinus and included caicus and aventinus (C. & S.). Skinner (1911) included mysie, treating Phoedinus as a subgenus under Eudamus. Lindsey (1921) selected caicus as the type-species of Phoedinus.

..:

...

VOLUME 29, NUMBER 1 61

Mabille & Boullet (1919) proposed Anaperus to replace Phoedinus Godman & Salvin 1894, considered to be a homonym of Phaedinus Duponchel 1834, which was used by Guerin-Meneville (1838), but misspelled Phoedinus. See Cowan (1970) for a more complete discus­sion. Anaperus is itself a homonym. It was replaced by Caicella Hemming in 1934.

But as pointed out by Cowan (loc. cit.), under present rules Phoedinus Godman & Salvin 1894 is not a homonym of Phaedinus Duponchel 1834, but is a valid genus, and the replacement name Caicella Hemming 1934 is not needed, and is junior synonym of Phoedinus Godman & Salvin.

It appears that the binomen Phoeclinus mysie (Dyar) 1904 is valid and should be returned to prior usage.

Lindsey (1921), Skinner & Williams (1924), Lindsey, Bell, & Williams ( 1931), and Bell (1938), in dealing with the American members of the genus Ochlocles Scudder 1872 (Augiacles auct., nec Hubner 1819), all place both agricola Boisduval 1852, and sylvanoides 1852 correctly. All, however, fail to associate nemorum Boisduval 1852 with agricola, but associate it either with sylvanoides, or regard it as a distinct species.

Skinner & Williams (op. cit.) note that agricola has hyaline spots below the stigma, and a white central line in the stigma, associating agricola, milo and verus correctly. However, they consider nemorum a light form of sylvanoides.

Lindsey and Lindsey, Bell & Williams, have the same concept of nemorum as a light sylvanoides-type insect, but both raise nemorum to the species level, and this position is taken by Bell (1938). As will appear below, they are correct in realizing the existence of a small, pale sylvanoides-like insect in California, but are mistaken in the name they apply to it.

Evans (1955) seems to have been the first to associate nemorum with agricola, placing it as a subspecies of agricola.

In the early 1950's I sent some specimens to Evans for comparison with the Boisduval specimens in the British Museum. The ones I had considered to be agricola and sylvanoides agreed with the Boisduval type material. The one that was nemorum by the Skinner-Williams­Lindsey-Bell concept, proved to agree entirely with the insect named pratincola by Boisduval.

Thus it appears that the insect previously considered by most American workers to be nemorum, actually is pratincola Boisduval 1852. Evans ( op. cit.) placed it as a subspecies of sylvanoides. Lindsey (1921) placed it as a subspecies of nemorum, his concept of nemorum being of the insect that is actually pratincola .

62 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS' SOCIETY

Pratincola looks like a small pale sylvanoides, flying in June. It appears just as Ochlodes agricola is becoming worn, and is gone by the time the late-flying sylvanoides appears. It is a rather uncommon species, and is likely to be undetected among the numbers of the much more common agricola.

Ochlodes pratincola Boisduval 1852 should be restored to rightful position as a valid species. It should be listed after sylvanoides and before agricola, as No. 79.1 in the dos Passos List.

LITERATURE CITED

BELL, E. L. 1938. The Hesperioidea. Bull. Cheyenne Mt. Mus. 1 ( 1 ): 23-24. BorSDUVAL, J. A. 1852. Lepidopteres de la Californie. Ann. Soc. Entomo!. Fr.

(2)10: 313-315. COWAN, c. F. 1970. Annotationes Rhopalocerologicac. 15 April 1970: 42 & 53. DUPONCHEL, P. A. J. 1834. Page 38 in L. P. Audinet-Servel, Nouvelle classifica­

tion de la famille des Longicornes, 3. Ann. Soc. Entomo!. Fr., Vo!' 3. DYAR, H. G. 1904. New Species of North American Lepidoptera and a new lima­

codid larva. J. N. Y. Entomo!' Soc. 12: 40. EVANS, W. H. 1952. A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae. Part II: 132.

1955. A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae. Part IV: 341-343. GODMAN, F. D., & O. SALVI!\'. 1894. Biologia Centrali-Americana, Rhopalocera 2:

335. GUERIN-MENEVILLE, F. E. 1838. Note sur deux especes nouvelles du genre

Phoedinus. Rev. Zoo!. 1838: 286. HEMMING, F. 1934. Notes on nine genera of Holarctic Rhopalocera. Stylops 3:

144. HOFFMANN, C. C. 1941. Catalogo sistematico y zoogeographico de los lepidopteros

mexicanos. Segunda Parte. Hesperiodea. Ann. Inst. Bio!. 12( 1): 250-251 (Nos. 887, 892).

LINDSEY, A. W., E. L. BELL, & R. C. WILLIAMS, JR. 1931. The Hesperioidea of North America. Bull. Denison Univ., J. Sci. Labs. 36: 37,94-96.

MABILLE, P., & E. BOULLET. 1919. Essai de revision de la famille des Hesperides (Suite 1). Ann. Sciences Nat. Zoo!. (Ser. 10) 2: 199-258.

SKINKER, H. 1911. The larger Boreal American Hesperiidae, including Eudamus, Erycides, Pyrrhopyge and Megathymus. Trans. Ann. Entomo!. Soc. 37: 181.

---, & R. C. WILLIAMS, JR. 1924. On the male genitalia of the Hesperiidae of North America. Paper V. Trans. Am. Entomo!. Soc. 50: 142-146.

TILDEN, J. W. 1949. A note on Caicella mysie, with a figure of the male genitalia. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 84: 4-6.

1961. Studies in the Genus Ochlodes Scudder. II. The type material of the North American species (Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Ent. News. 72: 37-45.