Search

We present the first dated molecular phylogeny of the Cerurinae moths (Notodontidae), based on sequence data for 666 loci generated by anchored hybrid enrichment. Monophyly of Cerurinae is corroborated, which includes the following genera: Pararethona Janse, Pseudorethona Janse, Oreocerura Kiriakoff, stat. rev., Cerurella Kiriakoff, Notocerura Kiriakoff, Hampsonita Kiriakoff, Afrocerura Kiriakoff, Cerurina Kiriakoff, Neoharpyia Daniel, Furcula Lamarck, Neocerura Matsumura, Americerura St Laurent and Goldstein, gen. nov., Cerura Schrank, and Kamalia Koçak & Kemal. The type species of the Neotropical genus Tecmessa Burmeister, T. annulipes (Berg), which had been incorrectly assigned to Cerurinae, is recovered in Heterocampinae; and Americeruragen. nov. is proposed to receive 17 unambiguously cerurine species transferred from Tecmessa. Divergence time estimates recover a crown age of Notodontidae roughly coincident with the K-Pg boundary, and a late-Oligocene crown age for Cerurinae. An African origin is inferred for Cerurinae, followed by colonization of the Palearctic, the Americas, Indomalaya, and Australasia during the Miocene. At least three independent colonizations of the Americas are inferred, one in the mid-Miocene associated with ancestral Americeruragen. nov. and two in the Pliocene and Pleistocene within Furcula. We hypothesize that the global spread of Cerurinae was enabled by that of its primary caterpillar foodplants in the Salicaceae. State-dependent diversification analyses suggest that cerurines diversified most rapidly in temperate climates.

Molecular identification is increasingly used to speed up biodiversity surveys and laboratory experiments. However, many groups of organisms cannot be reliably identified using standard databases such as GenBank or BOLD due to lack of sequenced voucher specimens identified by experts. Sometimes a large number of sequences are available, but with too many errors to allow identification. Here we address this problem for parasitoids of Drosophila by introducing a curated open-access molecular reference database, DROP (Drosophilaparasitoids). Identifying Drosophila parasitoids is challenging and poses a major impediment to realize the full potential of this model system in studies ranging from molecular mechanisms to food webs, and in biological control of Drosophila suzukii. In DROP (http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4519656), genetic data are linked to voucher specimens and, where possible, the voucher specimens are identified by taxonomists and vetted through direct comparison with primary type material. To initiate DROP, we curated 154 laboratory strains, 856 vouchers, 554 DNA sequences, 16 genomes, 14 transcriptomes, and 6 proteomes drawn from a total of 183 operational taxonomic units (OTUs): 114 described Drosophila parasitoid species and 69 provisional species. We found species richness of Drosophila parasitoids to be heavily underestimated and provide an updated taxonomic catalogue for the community. DROP offers accurate molecular identification and improves cross-referencing between individual studies that we hope will catalyze research on this diverse and fascinating model system. Our effort should also serve as an example for researchers facing similar molecular identification problems in other groups of organisms.

Noctuidae are one of the world’s most diverse, ecologically successful, and economically important animal lineages with over 12,000 species in ~1,150 genera. We inferred a phylogeny using eight protein-coding genes for the global fauna, greatly expanding upon previous attempts to stabilize Noctuidae higher classification by sampling 341 genera (nearly half represented by their type species) representing 70/76 widely recognized family-group taxa: 20/21 subfamilies, 32/35 tribes, and 18/20 subtribes. We evaluated 17 subfamily-level taxa in detail, discussing adult and larval morphology, life histories, and taxonomic implications of our results. We significantly alter concepts of Acontiinae, Condicinae, Eustrotiinae, Metoponiinae, and Stiriinae. Our results supported recognition of two new subfamilies: Cobubathinae Wagner & Keegan, 2021 subf. nov. and Cropiinae Keegan & Wagner, 2021 subf. nov. Other nomenclatural changes we made are as follows. We moved: ‘Acontia’ viridifera (Hampson, 1910), ‘Azenia’ virida Barnes and McDunnough, 1916, Aleptinoides, Austrazenia, Chalcoecia, Megalodes, and Trogotorna to Chamaecleini in Acontiinae; Apaustis to, and reinstated Emmelia as a valid genus in Acontiinae; Allophyes and Meganephria to Cuculliinae; ‘Plagiomimicus’ navia (Harvey, 1875), Airamia, Alvaradoia, Hypoperigea, Neotarache, and Mesotrosta to Condicinae; Axenus, Azenia, Metaponpneumata, Sexserrata, and Tristyla to Metoponiinae; ‘Paramiana’ canoa (Barnes, 1907) to Noctuinae; Aucha, Cobubatha, and Tripudia to Cobubathinae; Anycteola and Supralathosea to Oncocnemidinae; Cropia to Cropiinae; Desmoloma to Dyopsinae; Eviridemas and Gloanna to Bryophilinae; Fota and Stilbia to Stiriinae; and Copibryophila, Homolagoa, and Tyta to Noctuidae incertae sedis. We conclude with discussion of instances where current understanding of noctuid biogeography and life histories were changed by our results.

Thraumatagen. nov. is described to accommodate three South American species, two previously placed in Phuphena Walker, 1858, namely Thraumatapetrovna (Schaus, 1904), comb. nov. and Thraumatasubvenata (Schaus, 1914), comb. nov.; and one, Thraumataperuviensiasp. nov., newly described from Peru. Although the larval biology is unknown, these species share several features that suggest their placement in Eriopinae and, as a consequence, a potential association with ferns (Pteridophyta) as larval host plants.

Three new genera are described:Michener(Proteropinae),Bioalfa(Rogadinae), andHermosomastax(Rogadinae). Keys are given for the New World genera of the following braconid subfamilies: Agathidinae, Braconinae, Cheloninae, Homolobinae, Hormiinae, Ichneutinae, Macrocentrinae, Orgilinae, Proteropinae, Rhysipolinae, and Rogadinae. In these subfamilies 416 species are described or redescribed. Most of the species have been reared and all but 13 are new to science. A consensus sequence of the COI barcodes possessed by each species is employed to diagnose the species, and this approach is justified in the introduction. Most descriptions consist of a lateral or dorsal image of the holotype, a diagnostic COI consensus barcode, the Barcode Index Number (BIN) code with a link to the Barcode of Life Database (BOLD), and the holotype specimen information required by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The following species are treated and those lacking authorship are newly described here with authorship attributable to Sharkey except for the new species of Macrocentrinae which are by Sharkey & van Achterberg: AGATHIDINAE:Aerophilus paulmarshi,Mesocoelus davidsmithi,Neothlipsis bobkulai,Plesiocoelus vanachterbergi,Pneumagathis erythrogastra(Cameron, 1905),Therophilus bobwhartoni,T. donaldquickei,T. gracewoodae,T. maetoi,T. montywoodi,T. penteadodiasae,Zacremnops brianbrowni,Z. coatlicueSharkey, 1990,Zacremnops cressoni(Cameron, 1887),Z. ekchuahSharkey, 1990,Z. josefernandezi,Zelomorpha sarahmeierottoae. BRACONINAE:Bracon alejandromarini,B. alejandromasisi,B. alexamasisae,B. andresmarini,B. andrewwalshi,B. anniapicadoae,B. anniemoriceae,B. barryhammeli,B. bernardoespinozai,B. carlossanabriai,B. chanchini,B. christophervallei,B. erasmocoronadoi,B. eugeniephillipsae,B. federicomatarritai,B. frankjoycei,B. gerardovegai,B. germanvegai,B. isidrochaconi,B. jimlewisi,B. josejaramilloi,B. juanjoseoviedoi,B. juliodiazi,B. luzmariaromeroae,B. manuelzumbadoi,B. marialuisariasae,B. mariamartachavarriae,B. mariorivasi,B. melissaespinozae,B. nelsonzamorai,B. nicklaphami,B. ninamasisae,B. oliverwalshi,B. paulamarinae,B. rafamoralesi,B. robertofernandezi,B. rogerblancoi,B. ronaldzunigai,B. sigifredomarini,B. tihisiaboshartae,B. wilberthbrizuelai,Digonogastra montylloydi,D. montywoodi,D. motohasegawai,D. natwheelwrighti,D. nickgrishini. CHELONINAE:Adelius adrianguadamuzi,A. gauldiShimbori & Shaw, 2019,A. janzeniShimbori & Shaw, 2019,Ascogaster gloriasihezarae,A. grettelvegae,A. guillermopereirai,A. gustavoecheverrii,A. katyvandusenae,A. luisdiegogomezi,Chelonus alejandrozaldivari,C. gustavogutierrezi,C. gustavoinduni,C. harryramirezi,C. hartmanguidoi,C. hazelcambroneroae,C. iangauldi,C. isidrochaconi,C. janecheverriae,C. jeffmilleri,C. jennyphillipsae,C. jeremydewaardi,C. jessiehillae,C. jesusugaldei,C. jimlewisi,C. jimmilleri,C. jimwhitfieldi,C. johanvalerioi,C. johnburnsi,C. johnnoyesi,C. jorgebaltodanoi,C. jorgehernandezi,C. josealfredohernandezi,C. josefernandeztrianai,C. josehernandezcortesi,C. josemanuelperezi,C. josephinerodriguezae,C. juanmatai,C. junkoshimurae,C. kateperezae,C. luciariosae,C. luzmariaromeroae,C. manuelpereirai,C. manuelzumbadoi,C. marianopereirai,C. maribellealvarezae,C. markmetzi,C. markshawi,C. martajimenezae,C. mayrabonillae,C. meganmiltonae,C. melaniamunozae,C. michaelstroudi,C. michellevanderbankae,C. mingfangi,C. minorcarmonai,C. monikaspringerae,C. moniquegilbertae,C. motohasegawai,C. nataliaivanovae,C. nelsonzamorai,C. normwoodleyi,C. osvaldoespinozai,C. pamelacastilloae,C. paulgoldsteini,C. paulhansoni,C. paulheberti,C. petronariosae,C. ramyamanjunathae,C. randallgarciai,C. rebeccakittelae,C. robertoespinozai,C. robertofernandezi,C. rocioecheverriae,C. rodrigogamezi,C. ronaldzunigai,C. rosibelelizondoae,C. rostermoragai,C. ruthfrancoae,C. scottmilleri,C. scottshawi,C. sergioriosi,C. sigifredomarini,C. stevearonsoni,C. stevestroudi,C. sujeevanratnasinghami,C. sureshnaiki,C. torbjornekremi,C. yeimycedenoae,Leptodrepana alexisae,L. erasmocoronadoi,L. felipechavarriai,L. freddyquesadai,L. gilbertfuentesi,L. manuelriosi,Phanerotoma almasolisae,P. alvaroherrerai,P. anacordobae,P. anamariamongeae,P. andydeansi,P. angelagonzalezae,P. angelsolisi,P. barryhammeli,P. bernardoespinozai,P. calixtomoragai,P. carolinacanoae,P. christerhanssoni,P. christhompsoni,P. davesmithi,P. davidduthiei,P. dirksteinkei,P. donquickei,P. duniagarciae,P. duvalierbricenoi,P. eddysanchezi,P. eldarayae,P. eliethcantillanoae,P. jenopappi,Pseudophanerotoma alanflemingi,Ps. albanjimenezi,Ps. alejandromarini,Ps. alexsmithi,Ps. allisonbrownae,Ps. bobrobbinsi. HOMOLOBINAE:Exasticolus jennyphillipsae,E. randallgarciai,E. robertofernandezi,E. sigifredomarini,E. tomlewinsoni. HORMIINAE:Hormius anamariamongeae,H. angelsolisi,H. anniapicadoae,H. arthurchapmani,H. barryhammeli,H. carmenretanae,H. carloswalkeri,H. cesarsuarezi,H. danbrooksi,H. eddysanchezi,H. erikframstadi,H. georgedavisi,H. grettelvegae,H. gustavoinduni,H. hartmanguidoi,H. hectoraritai,H. hesiquiobenitezi,H. irenecanasae,H. isidrochaconi, H. jaygallegosi,H. jimbeachi,H. jimlewisi,H. joelcracrafti,H. johanvalerioi,H. johnburleyi,H. joncoddingtoni,H. jorgecarvajali,H. juanmatai,H. manuelzumbadoi,H. mercedesfosterae,H. modonnellyae,H. nelsonzamorai,H. pamelacastilloae,H. raycypessi,H. ritacolwellae,H. robcolwelli,H. rogerblancosegurai,H. ronaldzunigai,H. russchapmani,H. virginiaferrisae,H. warrenbrighami,H. willsflowersi. ICHNEUTINAE:Oligoneurus kriskrishtalkai,O. jorgejimenezi,Paroligoneurus elainehoaglandae,P. julianhumphriesi,P. mikeiviei. MACROCENTRINAE:Austrozele jorgecampabadali,A. jorgesoberoni,Dolichozele gravitarsis(Muesebeck, 1938),D. josefernandeztrianai,D. josephinerodriguezae,Hymenochaonia kalevikulli,H. kateperezae,H. katherinebaillieae,H. katherineellisonae,H. katyvandusenae,H. kazumifukunagae,H. keithlangdoni,H. keithwillmotti,H. kenjinishidai,H. kimberleysheldonae,H. krisnorvigae,H. lilianamadrigalae,H. lizlangleyae,Macrocentrus fredsingeri,M. geoffbarnardi,M. gregburtoni,M. gretchendailyae,M. grettelvegae,M. gustavogutierrezi,M. hannahjamesae,M. harisridhari,M. hillaryrosnerae,M. hiroshikidonoi,M. iangauldi,M. jennyphillipsae,M. jesseausubeli,M. jessemaysharkae,M. jimwhitfieldi,M. johnbrowni,M. johnburnsi,M. jonathanfranzeni,M. jonathanrosenbergi,M. jorgebaltodanoi,M. lucianocapelli. ORGILINAE:Orgilus amyrossmanae,O. carrolyoonae,O. christhompsoni,O. christinemcmahonae,O. dianalipscombae,O. ebbenielsoni,O. elizabethpennisiae,O. evertlindquisti,O. genestoermeri,O. jamesriegeri,O. jeanmillerae,O. jeffmilleri,O. jerrypowelli,O. jimtiedjei,O. johnlundbergi,O. johnpipolyi,O. jorgellorentei,O. larryspearsi,O. marlinricei,O. mellissaespinozae,O. mikesmithi,O. normplatnicki,O. peterrauchi,O. richardprimacki,O. sandraberriosae,O. sarahmirandae,O. scottmilleri,O. scottmorii,Stantonia billalleni,S. brookejarvisae,S. donwilsoni,S. erikabjorstromae,S. garywolfi,S. henrikekmani,S. luismirandai,S. miriamzunzae,S. quentinwheeleri,S. robinkazmierae,S. ruthtifferae. PROTEROPINAE:Hebichneutes tricolorSharkey & Wharton, 1994,Proterops iangauldi,P. vickifunkae,Michener charlesi. RHYSIPOLINAE:Pseudorhysipolis luisfonsecai,P. mailyngonzalezaeRhysipolis julioquirosi. ROGADINAE:Aleiodes adrianaradulovae,A. adrianforsythi,A. agnespeelleae,A. alaneaglei,A. alanflemingi,A. alanhalevii,A. alejandromasisi,A. alessandracallejae,A. alexsmithi,A. alfonsopescadori,A. alisundermieri,A. almasolisae,A. alvarougaldei,A. alvaroumanai,A. angelsolisi,A. annhowdenae,A. bobandersoni,A. carolinagodoyae,A. charlieobrieni,A. davefurthi,A. donwhiteheadi,A. doylemckeyi,A. frankhovorei,A. henryhowdeni,A. ingaShimbori & Shaw, 2020,A. johnchemsaki,A. johnkingsolveri,A. gonodontovorusShimbori & Shaw, 2020,A. manuelzumbadoi,A. mayrabonillae,A. michelledsouzae,A. mikeiviei,A. normwoodleyi,A. pammitchellae,A. pauljohnsoni,A. rosewarnerae,A. steveashei,A. terryerwini,A. willsflowersi,Bioalfa pedroleoni,B. alvarougaldei,B. rodrigogamezi,Choreborogas andydeansi,C. eladiocastroi,C. felipechavarriai,C. frankjoycei,Clinocentrus andywarreni,Cl. angelsolisi,Cystomastax alexhausmanni,Cy. angelagonzalezae,Cy. ayaigarashiae,Hermosomastax clavifemorusQuicke sp. nov.,Heterogamus donstonei,Pseudoyelicones bernsweeneyi,Stiropius bencrairi,S. berndkerni,S. edgargutierrezi,S. edwilsoni,S. ehakernae,Triraphis billfreelandi,T. billmclarneyi,T. billripplei,T. bobandersoni,T. bobrobbinsi,T. bradzlotnicki,T. brianbrowni,T. brianlaueri,T. briannestjacquesae,T. camilocamargoi,T. carlosherrerai,T. carolinepalmerae,T. charlesmorrisi,T. chigiybinellae,T. christerhanssoni,T. christhompsoni,T. conniebarlowae,T. craigsimonsi,T. defectusValerio, 2015,T. danielhubi,T. davidduthiei,T. davidwahli,T. federicomatarritai,T. ferrisjabri,T. mariobozai,T. martindohrni,T. matssegnestami,T. mehrdadhajibabaei,T. ollieflinti,T. tildalauerae,Yelicones dirksteinkei,Y. markmetzi,Y. monserrathvargasae,Y. tricolorQuicke, 1996.Y. woldaiQuicke, 1996.The following new combinations are proposed:Neothlipsis smithi(Ashmead), new combination forMicrodus smithiAshmead, 1894;Neothlipsis pygmaeus(Enderlein), new combination forMicrodus pygmaeusEnderlein, 1920;Neothlipsis unicinctus(Ashmead), new combination forMicrodus unicinctusAshmead, 1894;Therophilus anomalus(Bortoni and Penteado-Dias) new combination forPlesiocoelus anomalusBortoni and Penteado-Dias, 2015;Aerophilus areolatus(Bortoni and Penteado-Dias) new combination forPlesiocoelus areolatusBortoni and Penteado-Dias, 2015;Pneumagathis erythrogastra(Cameron) new combination forAgathis erythrogastraCameron, 1905.Dolichozele citreitarsis(Enderlein), new combination forPaniscozele citreitarsisEnderlein, 1920.Dolichozele fuscivertex(Enderlein) new combination forPaniscozele fuscivertexEnderlein, 1920. Finally,Bassus brooksiSharkey, 1998 is synonymized withAgathis erythrogastraCameron, 1905;Paniscozele griseipesEnderlein, 1920 is synonymized withDolichozele koebeleiViereck, 1911;Paniscozele carinifronsEnderlein, 1920 is synonymized withDolichozele fuscivertex(Enderlein, 1920); andPaniscozele nigricaudaEnderlein,1920 is synonymized withDolichozele quaestor(Fabricius, 1804). (originally described asOphion quaestorFabricius, 1804).

Lophomyra Schaus, 1911 (Noctuidae) is the smaller of two noctuid genera originally described by Schaus that include species recently associated with ferns (Pteridophyta), in this case Polypodiaceae, as larval food plants. Following an examination of type material and reared specimens accompanied by DNA barcode data, Lophomyra is revised to include L.tacita Schaus, 1911, L.santista (Jones, 1914), and L.commixta (Schaus, 1914), comb. n., the last of which is transferred from Chytonidia Schaus, 1914 (= Leucosigma Druce, 1908). Lophomyra is characterized based on adult and larval morphology, especially that of the male genitalia. Structures associated with the valvae are discussed with reference to dissected and in situ images. Larvae of L.commixta and L.tacita are described from images, and the recorded food plants of both species are discussed in the context of known New World noctuid pteridivores.

Interpretations and analytical practices surrounding DNA barcoding are reviewed from a compilation of 3,756 papers (as of December 31, 2018) with “DNA Barcode” in the title since 2004. By examining the practice of DNA barcoding in natural history and biodiversity science over this period, we explore the extent to which its purposes, premises, rationale and application have evolved. The number of studies involving identification, taxonomic decisions and the discovery of cryptic species has driven the publication of DNA barcode studies overall. Forensic studies and papers on biological conservation involving DNA barcodes have tracked the ensemble number of studies but rose sharply in 2017. Although neighbor-joining and graphic (tree-based) criteria for species delimitation have been preeminent, analytical paradigms have diversified slightly following the growing availability of tools in the Barcode of Life Database (BoLD). We conclude that the paradigms of DNA barcoding data are likely to persist and, in groups such as Lepidoptera, DNA barcoding has become a widely used tool in taxonomic science. The degree to which systematists will avail themselves of tools for extracting diagnostic data from barcodes remains to be seen.

Aprica Goldstein, gen. nov. is described to accommodate Xanthiapatula Druce, 1898. Recent discovery of its larva, which has been recorded eating foliage of species in six families of leptosporangiate ferns, suggest a possible subfamily assignment within the Eriopinae, but this cannot be substantiated based on adult morphology. This species has no obvious close relatives either among the core noctuid pteridivore genera currently recognized in the Eriopinae (e.g., Callopistria Hübner, [1821]), nor among genera more recently discovered to be fern-feeders but which remain incertae sedis with respect to subfamily (e.g., Leucosigma Druce, 1908, Lophomyra Schaus, 1911). The recorded foodplant profile is similar to that of another ambiguously placed Nearctic species Fagitanalittera (Guenée, 1852) (Noctuidae: Noctuinae: Xylenini, incertae sedis) with which it shares no obvious synapomorphies.

Heliothine larvae, especially early instars, are difficult to identify, and determinations sometimes rely on indirect information such as origin and host data. The introduction of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) into the New World has undermined the reliability of host and origin data to identify intercepted Helicoverpa larvae, and suspect Heliothinae/Helicoverpa larvae intercepted at U.S. ports of entry are now screened for H. armigera and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) using molecular methods. Here, we analyze heliothine larvae intercepted during 2014-2106 to identify nontargets and evaluate morphological characters traditionally used to separate taxa. In total, nine species were identified, with Chloridea virescens (Fabricius) making up the bulk of interception records. The majority of heliothine suspects originate from Mexico and Peru on pigeon pea, chickpea, tomatillo, pea, and corn. Helicoverpa armigera is commonly intercepted from Peru on pea. Chloridea virescens is recorded from every country where interceptions were identified for this study except Guatemala and is found on multiple hosts. Identification issues and specific host/origin associations are discussed in detail.

Chytonidia Schaus, 1914, is one of two noctuine genera originally described by Schaus that includes species recently found to feed on fern foliage (Pteridophyta) as larvae. By examining museum specimens, including type material and reared specimens accompanied by DNA barcode data, Chytonidia Schaus, 1914, syn. n. is synonymized with Leucosigma Druce, 1908, all currently recognized species are re-described, including males of three species described from female holotypes, and three new species are described: Leucosigmasolisae Goldstein, sp. n., Leucosigmapoolei Goldstein, sp. n., and L.schausi Goldstein, sp. n. Images of adults and, where available, larvae as well as dissected genitalia are presented, with a key to adults.

Recent commentary by Costello and collaborators on the current state of the global taxonomic enterprise attempts to demonstrate that taxonomy is not in decline as feared by taxonomists, but rather is increasing by virtue of the rate at which new species are formally named. Having supported their views with data that clearly indicate as much, Costello et al. make recommendations to increase the rate of new species descriptions even more. However, their views appear to rely on the perception of species as static and numerically if not historically equivalent entities whose value lie in their roles as "metrics". As such, their one-dimensional portrayal of the discipline, as concerned solely with the creation of new species names, fails to take into account both the conceptual and epistemological foundations of systematics. We refute the end-user view that taxonomy is on the rise simply because more new species are being described compared with earlier decades, and that, by implication, taxonomic practice is a formality whose pace can be streamlined without considerable resources, intellectual or otherwise. Rather, we defend the opposite viewpoint that professional taxonomy is in decline relative to the immediacy of the extinction crisis, and that this decline threatens not just the empirical science of phylogenetic systematics, but also the foundations of comparative biology on which other fields rely. The allocation of space in top-ranked journals to propagate views such as those of Costello et al. lends superficial credence to the unsupportive mindset of many of those in charge of the institutional fate of taxonomy. We emphasize that taxonomy and the description of new species are dependent upon, and only make sense in light of, empirically based classifications that reflect evolutionary history; homology assessments are at the centre of these endeavours, such that the biological sciences cannot afford to have professional taxonomists sacrifice the comparative and historical depth of their hypotheses in order to accelerate new species descriptions. Fil: de Carvalho, María Rosa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Ebach, Malte C.. University of New South Wales; Australia Fil: Williams, David M.. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido Fil: Nihei, Silvio S.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Rodrigues, Miguel Trefaut. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Grant, Taran. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Silveira, Luís F.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Zaher, Hussam. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Gill, Anthony C.. University of Sydney; Australia Fil: Schelly, Robert C.. American Museum of Natural History; Estados Unidos Fil: Sparks, John S.. American Museum of Natural History; Estados Unidos Fil: Bockmann, Flávio. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Séret, Bernard. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Ho, Hsuan-Ching. National Museum of Marine Biology and Aquarium; China Fil: Grande, Lance. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados Unidos Fil: Rieppel, Olivier. Field Museum Of Natural History; Estados Unidos Fil: Dubois, Alain. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Ohler, Annemarie. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Faivovich, Julián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia”; Argentina Fil: Assis, Leandro C.S.. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais; Brasil Fil: Wheeler, Quentin D.. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Goldstein, Paul Z.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos Fil: De Almeida, Eduardo A.B.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; Brasil Fil: Valdecasa, A.G.. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales; España Fil: Nelson, Gareth. University of Melbourne; Australia

Beach plum, Prunus maritima Marshall, 1785 not Wangenh., 1787 (Rosaceae), currently under development as a potential crop, represents an under-acknowledged host plant for several Lepidoptera that have undergone declines in the northeastern USA. The Coastal Heathland Cutworm, Abagrotis nefascia (Smith, 1908), and the Dune Noctuid, Sympistis riparia (Morrison, 1875), are unrelated species of psammophilic noctuines (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) regularly encountered on a localized basis in coastal southern New England and New York, and whose precise life history requirements are undocumented. We inferred and, based on field observation and rearing, corroborated beach plum as a larval host for these species in Massachusetts; the plant’s role in sustaining other moths with limited or contracting regional distributions is discussed. Sympistis riparia, belonging to a widely distributed complex of closely related species, has been associated specifically with both maritime and freshwater dunes. The eastern populations of Abagrotis nefascia represent a conspicuous range disjunction, separated from the nearest western populations by more than 2000 miles, and originally described by Franclemont as race benjamini of Abagrotis crumbi, both later synonymized with Abagrotis nefascia. Following examination of types and other material, an evaluation of putatively diagnostic features from both the original description and our own observations, genitalic characters, and the results of provisional barcode analyses, Abagrotis benjamini Franclemont, stat. rev., is elevated to the rank of a valid species rather than representing eastern populations of Abagrotis nefascia (=crumbi) to which it originally referred.

Stem-borers in the genus Papaipema (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) range from highly polyphagous agricultural pests to specialists on more than 20 families of flowering plants, many of them highly toxic. Papaipema is the largest genus of noctuids endemic to North America and provides an excellent study system for the evolution of noctuid host plant use. To improve the availability of genomic resources for such investigations, we performed de novo transcriptome sequencing and assembly for two specialist Papaipema with unusual larval hosts: P. speciosissima, which is associated with ferns, and the undescribed P. "sp. 4," which is associated with bamboo. The resulting transcriptomes were similar in terms of completeness, gene count, and gene identity, but we identified some 8,000 genes (~17% of each transcriptome) not shared between the two species. While some of these have identifiable orthologs in other Lepidoptera, ~5% of each transcriptome consists of species-specific genes. We examine the function of these genes and find that almost half have retrotransposon-related functional domains. The potential role of species-specific genes is discussed, and the expansion of certain retrotransposon families in Papaipema is examined.

Summary 1 Although likely to yield less copious collections than their tropical counterparts, temperate inventories focused on invertebrates require individuals not only trained to deal with a wide array of taxa but also versed in the techniques used to process and archive specimens. 2 Due in part to the prevalence of physically intensive conservation management practices (e.g. prescribed burning) or resource management practices (e.g. selective logging), and in part to a better understanding of temperate invertebrate faunas relative to their tropical counterparts, temperate conservationists bear an inescapable responsibility for monitoring the effects of such practices on species assemblages of conservation concern. 3 Counterintuitively, North American conservation programmes, particularly those involving monitoring, run the risk of turning away from concerns for invertebrate assemblages, despite their being relatively well-understood, recognized as powerful conservation tools or indicators, and in some areas the demonstrable majority of the most threatened of animal species. 4 Synthesis and applications. To prevent further erosion or underuse of invertebrate monitoring and inventories, there is a recognizable need for professional space in the North American conservation community for parataxonomist-like individuals. These should be trained to deal with both the required field procedures and the standards and practices associated with maintaining systematic voucher and reference collections in natural history museums and herbaria. In particular, the relevance of discovery-orientated biological inventories and collections-based systematic research to the design and implementation of adequate natural areas management and monitoring remains underemphasized and underappreciated by some allegedly science-based conservation programmes.

Records of seventy four species of scarab beetles are summarized from nine of Massachusetts' offshore islands. The scarab fauna of these areas is characterized through a combination of recent collections from over 30 locations on eight of the islands, museum specimens and the literature. Though the bulk of recent collecting effort has been devoted to the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, scattered species records are also collated from Naushon, Nashawena, Pasque, Tuckernuck, Muskeget, Penikese, and Cuttyhunk Islands. With 56 documented species, Martha's Vineyard, the largest of the islands, appears despite sampling bias to support the most diverse scarab fauna, followed by Nantucket, with 46 species. These two faunas account for 71 of the 74 species known from all the islands. A subset of these data consisting of scarabs from 2,700 pitfall trap samples is used to compare species richness and relative abundance at five sites on the two islands under varying degrees of conservation management. Although recent conservation has focused on grassland habitats, these represent a minority of the communities that occurred historically on these landscapes, and shrubbier habitats appear to support greater species richness than the less structurally complex grasslands.

Schaus (1929: 49) described Boalda gyona in a monobasic genus known only from the holotype taken in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Biezanko et al. (1957) reported the species from Uruguay. A number of specimens of Boalda similar to gyona were collected recently in Paraguay, at least two of which match the anomalous Argentinian taxon Nephelistis pulcherrima Kohler (1947: 77–78). Herein the genus Boalda is reviewed, with one new species described from the Paraguayan samples, and with N. pulcherrima transferred Boalda . A singleton specimen from Parque Nacional Cerro Cora, Dpto. Amambay, Paraguay, is figured but not described as a distinct species because of a lack of additional specimens.

Conservation genetics has expanaded its purview such that molecular techniques are now used rou- tinely to prioritize populations for listing anad protection and infer their historical relationships in addition to addressing more traditional questions of heterozygosity and inbreeding depression. Failure to specify whether molecular data are being used for diagnosis-related questions or for population viability questions, however, can lead either to misinterpretation of character data as adaptive information or to misinterpretation offre- qutency or distance data as diagnostic or historical information. Each of these misinterpretations will confound conservation programs. The character-based approach to delimiting phylogenetic species is both operationally and logically superior to "diagnostic" methods that involve distance- orfrequency-based routines, which are un- stable over time. Tree-based criteria for the diagnosis of conservation "units" are also inappropriate because they can depend on patterns inferred without reference to diagnostic characters. Intraspecific studies, conserva- tion-related or otherwise, that adopt terminology and methods designed to infer nested hierarchic relationships confuse diagnosis with historical inferences by treating diagnoses as outcomes rather than as precursors to phy- logeny reconstruction. A character-based diagnostic approach recognizes the analytical dichotomy between spe- cies hierarchies and population statistics and provides a framework for the understanding of each. No species concept, however, should be viewed as an absolute criterion for protecting populations, but as part of a frame- work fronm within which identification ofprotection and management goals can be achieved effectively and de- fensibly.

Several increasingly popular paradigms in conservation remove organismal information and life- histoty requirements from management planning with claims that species-specific information is not neces- sary to the understanding and management of "ecosystem function" and may therefore be discarded. Al- though several authors have called attention to the fact that ecosystem management has not yet been articu- lated sufficiently to comprise an adequate paradigm for wildlife protection, there has been a series of suggestions paralleling ecosystem management's popularity that the perceived or imagined emergent proper- ties of communities should be at the root of conservation planning. Such reductions most commonly take the form of abstracted species diversity measures that may be irrelevant or misleading with respect to site-specific planning and to the monitoring of specific management treatments. Following earlier examinations of eco- system management, I emphasize that several of its apparent outgrowths may be too vague to inform specific recommendations, that the historical mechanics of "ecosystem processes" are essentially unknovwable, and that anecdotal definitions of ecosystems allow one to justify virtually any protocol as management. The pri- macy of process-dependent, landscape-functional considerations in conservation planning is specious in the absence of species- and population-specific information, which shouldform the foundation for understclnding such processes in the first place. Only by viewing nature in terms of the relationships between processes and organisms, rather than in terms of emergent properties of organismal assemblages or abiotic factors divorced from organismal data, can conservation plans claim to protect biological elements.

In a recent paper in this journal, Oliver and Beattie (1996:100) recapitulate and extend their earlier arguments that "the use of invertebrates in some monitoring and conservation research and practice depends neither on knowledge of the Latin binomial [sic] of the species involved nor on specialist examination of entire field samples." Given limited resources available to garner expert cooperation, Oliver and Beattie (1993, 1994, 1996) as well as Beattie and Oliver (1994) advocate the use of species counts by nonspecialists as a shortcut to the assessment of conservation priority and to the procedure of biological monitoring for conservation purposes. Prior to their recent contribution to this journal, the authors had suggested the general idea of "taxonomic minimalism" in three earlier papers. Oliver and Beattie (1993) first published their morphospecies approach in Conservation Biology under the title "A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity." This paper was followed by a shorter work in TREE entitled "Taxonomic minimalism" (Beattie & Oliver 1994) that largely recapitulated their first paper but in which the order of authorship was reversed. The publication of their third paper (Oliver & Beattie 1994) in a recent symposium volume was also entitled "A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity," and contained but a single reference-that of their first paper. To avoid redundancy of citation, I will address my comments to the authors generally except when making explicit references to relevant text. My primary concern is not so much their use of parataxonomy in estimating raw species richness, but rather the extension of such estimates to the setting of conservation priorities and establishment of protocols for biological monitoring. Parataxonomy, in one form or another, is widely accepted as a useful if not critical component of attempts to assess local and regional species richness in the tropics. In one conception, the role of the parataxonomist is one of a preliminary sorter of samples (usually invertebrate samples) prior to or in conjunction with their examination by specialists (Wheeler 1995). This practice cuts down on the amount of time required of the specialist in routine general sorting, allowing more time for accurate determinations. In such a context, parataxonomists are taxon specialists in their own right, having the benefit of accumulated field knowledge to collect uncommon, specialized forms rarely taken by less experienced workers. Another view of the parataxonomist, one advocated by Janzen (Langreth 1994) and embraced by Oliver and Beattie is one of a local person who collects whatever taxa scientists are currently sampling; that is, someone tied to an ecological study site who is used to collect all sorts of organisms. In general, this version of parataxonomy is conducted within the framework of ecological research designed to examine patterns of local species richness (Colwell & Coddington 1994). Oliver and Beattie have extended the "discipline" of parataxonomy (Beattie & Oliver 1994:488) as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to the examination of organisms by organismal biologists. In so doing they have argued against taxonomic knowledge-both at the level and below that of a scientist-in conducting faunistic studies. They have, further, argued a role for the "morphospecies approach" in conservation decision making. Oliver and Beattie first justify their approach on grounds that it is a more effective use of resources. This assertion was strongly rebutted by Brower (1995), who observed that the resources required to narrow the gap between morphospecies assessment by nonspecialists and inventory conducted by specialists weaken the cost Address correspondence to Paul Z. Goldstein at his current address. Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West @ 79th, New York, NY 10024, US.A., email zoltan@amnh.org Paper submitted April 8, 1996; revised manuscript accepted September 25, 1996.

The Neotropical genus Schacontia Dyar (1914) is reviewed and revised to include eleven species. Schacontia replica Dyar, 1914, syn. n. and S. pfeifferi Amsel, 1956, syn. n. are synonymized with S. chanesalis (Druce, 1899) and eight new species are described: Schacontia umbra, sp. n., S. speciosa, sp. n., S. themis, sp. n., S. rasa, sp. n., S. nyx, sp. n., S. clotho, sp. n., S. lachesis, sp. n., and S. atropos, sp. n. Three species, S. medalba, S. chanesalis, and S. ysticalis, are re-described. An analysis of 64 characters (56 binary, 8 multistate; 5 head, 13 thoracic, 13 abdominal, 25 male genitalic, and 8 female genitalic) scored for all Schacontia and three outgroup species (Eustixia pupula Hübner, 1823, Glaphyria sesquistrialis Hübner, 1823, and Hellula undalis (Fabricius, 1781)) retrieved 8 equally most parsimonious trees (L=102, CI=71, RI=84) of which the strict consensus is: [[[[medalba + umbra] + chanesalis] + speciosa] + [ysticalis + [rasa + themis + [atropos + lachesis + nyx + clotho]]]]. The relevance of male secondary sexual characters to the diagnosis of Schacontia species is discussed.

My paper (Goldstein 1999) explored several published suggestions on how to focus conservation prioritization and management efforts and called attention to weaknesses in a variety of paradigms that may compromise our ability to protect threatened wildlife. I highlighted three ways in which shortcuts to conservation planning, management, and monitoring might jeopardize the resources they are intended to protect. The first of these involved the substitution of species richness measures for more focused assemblage-specific information. The second involved the interpretation of such measures as indicators of species richness in unrelated groups. The third concerned the widespread use of ill-defined buzzwords, such as ecosystem processes, ecosystem fttnctions, and ecological integrity, at the expense of actual biological information. Risser, Walker, and Oliver and Beattie have responded to my paper by arguing variously that the problems I describe are nonexistent or contrived, that they are outside or irrelevant to the field of conservation biology proper, or that they do, after all, exist but that my characterization of them is "ill-founded," "false," "unsubstantiated," "unhelpful," "disingenuous," and "counterproductive." Oliver and Beattie seized the additional opportunity to respond to a separate critique of their work in an earlier paper of mine. None of these authors detailed substantive disagreement with my primary points. Only Walker (1999) attempted to discuss the substance of my paper, and his differences of opinion, as I will show, are grounded in mischaracterizations. Risser and Oliver and Beattie chose