Search

The genera Amauta Houlbert, 1918 and Divana J.Y. Miller, 1982 are revised, with discussion of diagnostic features of males and females of all taxa. Details on their nomenclatural history, biogeography, and biology are included to solve several nomenclatural issues. Lectotypes are designated for Castnia (Amauta) papilionaris affinis Rothschild, 1919 and Castnia tricolor C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874. The status of the following taxa is revised: Amauta procera (Boisduval, [1875]) stat. rest., Amauta angusta (H. Druce, 1907) stat. rest., Castnia ambatensis Houlbert, 1917 syn. nov. of Castnia papilionaris papilionaris Walker, [1865], Castnia velutina Houlbert, 1917 syn. nov. of Castnia papilionaris papilionaris Walker, [1865], and Castnia diva chiriquiensis Strand, 1913 syn. nov. of Castnia diva diva Butler, 1870. Other taxa are revised, and their taxonomic status clarified. A new genus Vadina gen. nov. is proposed for Castnia hodeei Oberthür, 1881, which is removed (comb. nov.) from Telchin Hübner, [1825], whilst Amauta stat. rest. and Divana stat. rest., subsumed into Telchin in the most recent revision of the family, are herein reinstated as valid genera.

Vadina gen. nov. Type species: Castnia hodeei Oberthür, 1881, by present designation. Diagnosis: Vadina is a monotypic genus (Fig. 10); the type species is a medium-sized moth with much more rounded forewings than Amauta spp., and the termen is decidedly convex. Males have largely black forewings with just a hint of a white postmedian band, often just a couple of dots; this band tends to be more pronounced in Vadina hodeei kruegeri (Figs. 10D, E) than in the nominotypical subspecies (Figs. 10A–C). The hindwing is black with a small red patch at the anal angle, alongside this patch are a couple of small white patches in ssp. hodeei and a much larger white spot in ssp. kruegeri. Females have a black forewing with a postmedian white band which is only hinted at in the male, this band is narrow in ssp. kruegeri, but much wider in ssp. hodeei. The female hindwing, like that of the male, is black with a small red patch at the anal angle, however, alongside this patch is a white band that continues nearly up to the costa; this is quite wide in ssp. hodeei but much narrower in ssp. kruegeri. There are a series of five red extradiscal spots on the hindwing with just a hint of extradiscal spots on the forewing, although one specimen of ssp. kruegeri we have seen has eight very distinct red spots on the forewing. The ventral surface of the V. hodeei female is dark brown, and the pattern mirrors the dorsal surface, although the bands on all four wings are wider. In the male, the forewing is dark brown, and the pattern mirrors the dorsal surface with the addition of a row of extradiscal orange spots, strong in ssp. hodeei but fading away in ssp. kruegeri (fig. 12E). The hindwing lacks the white markings of the dorsal surface and there is a strong postmedian row of orange spots with a weaker extradiscal row; like the female, these are much stronger in ssp. hodeei than in ssp. kruegeri. Focusing on wing colouration alone, sexual dimorphism is evident in Amauta, Telchin and Vadina, but not so well expressed in Divana. Wing morphology and venation also help discern similarities and differences among the four genera, thus separating them. Vadina, Divana and Telchin are medium-sized moths, but they are smaller (~60–65%) than Amauta. Forewings of Amauta are almost 1/3 larger than Vadina, Divana, and Telchin (Forewing length: Vadina, Divana and Telchin: 60–80 mm; Amauta: 100–140 mm). Forewings of Vadina (Fig. 2B) are noticeably curved along the costa and at the apex of the outer margin, while they are only slightly curved along the costa and near the apex of the outer margin in Telchin (Fig. 2D). The costal margin of Divana (Fig. 2C) is slightly curved, as is the outer margin, similar to Vadina. The forewings in Amauta are broad and only slightly rounded along the distal third of the forewing costa, the outer margin is almost straight (Fig. 2A). Whilst a lobe is present in the anal margin of all four genera, it is certainly more pronounced in Vadina, than in the other three, especially in the area in front of the union of 1A with 2A (Figs. 2A–D). A radial accessory cell is present in Amauta, Vadina and Divana, but not in Telchin; the discal cell is closed in Amauta, Vadina and Telchin, but not completely in Divana (Figs. 2A–D). Males of Vadina, possess a moderately sclerotised genital capsule, while in Telchin and Amauta it ranges between moderately and heavily sclerotised. Vadina possesses the uncus and anterior section of gnathos apophysis slightly sclerotised, more so than the tegumen. Uncus short, divided, with arms laterad and barely developed socii; all lightly sclerotised, almost membranous distad, and gnathos moderately sclerotised in Divana. Uncus in Amauta has a bulbous protuberance and uncus is fused with the socii in Telchin, features that are not present in Vadina and Divana. Uncus is slightly sclerotised in Telchin, with an inflection in the lateral margins, such an inflection is barely noticeable in Vadina, whilst in Amauta, the uncus curves (Figs. 4A–H, 5E–F). Gnathos in Vadina is bifid anteriad and lightly sclerotised, but in Telchin, besides being bifid, it is heavily sclerotised with its dorsal arm prominent, and the ventral one reduced; in Amauta it is also bifid anteriad, but lightly sclerotised. Ventral margin of valva slightly concave in Vadina, while in Telchin is tenuously excavated and in Amauta is predominantly lobate with sacculus emarginate and recurved setiferous lobe ventrad (Figs. 4A–H, 5E–F). Phallus slightly sclerotised and slightly to moderately curved distally, having a distal section slightly larger than the coecum, with the terminal portion of shaft wider than the rest of the phallus and not contorted (Figs. 4G–H). Telchin has heavily sclerotised, strong, contorted distal section of phallus, which is double the size of the coecum. Tip of the phallus highly ornamented with several membranous intersections (Figs. 5E–F). In the case of Amauta, the phallus is deeply curved, with most species having a slightly hardened ejaculatory bulb (Figs. 4A, C–F). Divana with phallus moderately sclerotised, with distal section about ¾ the length of the coecum (Figs. 5A–D). Phallus is slightly contorted, sinuated, ending in a somewhat bifurcate plate at the tip, with a membranous dextral view and vesica everted bearing minute cornuti. The tip of the phallus of Divana is slightly ornamented, not as much as Telchin, but more than what can be seen in Vadina (Figs. 4G–H, 5A–F). Etymology: The name Vadina is an anagram of Divana, continuing the tradition started by Oiticica (1955) of using anagrams of existing genera for new ones. Remarks: Vadina hodeei appears to have a vestigial male retinaculum but it is very small and probably nonfunctional, unlike any other genus in the family (Fig. 1A), the male retinaculum and genitalia together with the wing venation make it possibly closer to Divana (in which the subcostal retinaculum is absent) than to Amauta or Telchin. However, the wing venation (Fig. 2B) and particularly the male genitalia (Figs. 4G, H & male genitalia below) in V. hodeei are very different from either of these genera., 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 305-306, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Oberthur, C. (1881) Lepidopteres d'Amerique. Etudes d'Entomologie, 6, xxv - xxvi + 27 - 38, pls. 4 - 6 + 10.","Oiticica Filho, J. (1955) Revisao dos nomes genericos sul-americanos da subfamilia Castniinae (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). Revista brasileira de Entomologia, 3, 137 - 167."]}

jeanneei (Rebel, 1915) (Fig. 7A) “ Castnia jeanneei nov. spec. (♂)” Rebel, 1915, Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 65 (9/10): (214)–(216), fig. 3 [Sitzungsberichte]. Type material: Described from a single male specimen designated as type (fig. 7A). According to Rebel (1915), this subspecies is very similar to cacica, but the forewing yellowish-cream bands are narrower. The hindwing orange band is broader in cacica. The holotype was originally in the collection of Dr. Josef Jeannée (Vienna), but we have no information about the whereabouts of his collection. We could not find it in the Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna. Type locality: Peru. Rebel provides no more details on the locality so it cannot be further pinpointed. G. Lamas (pers. comm.) considers that “ Peru ”, as the type locality, is “almost certainly erroneous” [“…la localidad tipo (“ Peru ”) es casi seguramente errónea.”]. Taxonomic status: A junior subjective synonym of Castnia angusta H. Druce, 1907. Originally described as a species, not mentioned by Miller (1995) but synonymised by Lamas (1995). Male genitalia: Not available. Distribution: “ Peru ”. Discussion: Rebel (1915) compares his new taxon with Amauta cacica rather than A. angusta (or oberthueri). He was clearly unaware of these latter taxa otherwise he would surely have realised that this was what he had in front of him. Material examined: As the type could not be found, only the black and white illustration in Rebel (1915) was examined., 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 329-330, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Rebel, H. (1915) [Notes]. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-koniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 65 (9 / 10), 211 - 216, 3 figs.","Druce, H. (1907) Descriptions of five new species of Heterocera. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20 (120), 505 - 506.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87."]}

amethystina (Houlbert, 1917) (Figs. 8A, B) “ Castnia Amethystina ♀, sp. nov. ” Houlbert, 1917, Études de Lépidoptérologie comparée 13: 54–55. Type material: Described from a single male, not a female as stated in the original description (cf. Houlbert, 1917, 1918), which is the holotype by monotypy (Fig. 8A). At the time of description, it was in the collection of Charles Oberthür (1845–1924), it is now in NHMUK. Type locality: Panama. No more information is available from either Houlbert’s writings or the specimen labels. Taxonomic status: A weakly defined subspecies of Amauta papilionaris (Walker, [1865]) closest to the south Peruvian-Bolivian populations known as ssp. lionela, the two possibly forming a so-called polytopic subspecies (cf. Mayr 1963, 1969; Zilli 1996). Originally described as a species but sunk to a subspecies of A. papilionaris by Miller (1995). Male genitalia: Uncus simple with wide and almost rounded apex. Gnathos sclerotised, bifid anteriad; tip level with or slightly exceeding uncus. Cucullus and valvula slightly rounded apically. Valvae are distinct, short, and wide. Ventral margin of valvae sharply cut. Sacculus projected and continues with the arms of the saccus. Anterior projection of saccus quite long. Vinculum semi-circular, small, crescent-shaped. Phallus curved, with distal section about three times the length of coecum, narrowed beyond junction with coecum, then slightly curved, with subterminal portion enlarged, rounded, and slightly contorted. Apex of phallus with a terminal, sclerotised section. The vesica opens to the left near end of the phallus. Distribution: Specimens are only known from Panama and Costa Rica (Limón province). Specimens from Colombia and Venezuela appear to be Amauta p. papilionaris (see papilionaris below) (Fig. 14). Discussion: Houlbert (1917) picks out the darker ground colour and the much smaller forewing white discal spot as the main differentiating features for this subspecies. His conclusion is hardly surprising as he was comparing the type with Westwood’s (1877) stylised figure of papilionaris (Fig. 8C). The actual holotype of A. papilionaris (Fig. 8D) (and all other specimens examined) have a much darker ground colour than Westwood’s figure, the same as in amethystina, and the discal spot is variable in size, many being the same size as in amethystina. Westwood’s figure exaggerates the width of the forewing pale yellow postmedian band and the size of the discal spot. The holotype of amethystina has a much broader forewing band than papilionaris and is in fact analogous to the southernmost subspecies of papilionaris – lionela. The hindwing blue postmedian band is of variable width in all populations but there is a suggestion that it is slightly narrower in amethystina. We have recently found a second specimen of amethystina from Costa Rica in CAS (Fig. 8B), which is in good agreement with the general appearance of the holotype. The differences in these two specimens compared with nominotypical papilionaris are considered to be enough to provisionally accept the subspecific separation of amethystina. More specimens are needed to confirm this. Rothschild (1919) stated that amethystina differs from papilionaris papilionaris by its small size and narrow blue postmedian band on the hindwings. However, as previously mentioned these are variable features and can also be found in many specimens of p. papilionaris. Rothschild also stated that he had one male of amethystina from Merida, Venezuela collected by Salomón Briceño (1826–1912); this specimen is now in NHMUK and appears not to be any different from A. p. papilionaris. Apolinar María (1945) figures a specimen (in colour) that he calls Amauta amethystina Hlb. possibly the first time that specific epithet is used in the Colombian lepidopterological literature. This same specimen is mentioned from years prior “…we received a beautiful specimen of Castnia papilionaris Wkr. from…, El Baldío. [… a town of recent foundation in the Eastern Cordillera of Bogotá] … the moth appears darker than the one [of papilionaris in Strand] …. Another very notable difference is the complete absence, in the insect that is in our collection, of the yellow discal spot that appears in the forewing of typical specimens.” (Apolinar María 1915). The illustrated specimen seems to be A. p. papilionaris. Material examined: In addition to the holotype, 1♂ Limón, Provincia de Limón, Costa Rica, Nicholas Zakharoff (CAS), was examined for this study. For comparison, several specimens from Colombia and Venezuela were also examined., 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 321-322, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Houlbert, C. (1917) Diagnoses de Castnies nouvelles et rectification de quelques noms indument employes. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 13, 49 - 87, pls. 1 - 4.","Houlbert, C. (1918) Revision monographique de la sous-famille des Castniinae. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 15, i - xvi + 1 - 730, pls. 437 - 462, figs. 1 - 242.","Mayr, E. (1963) Animal species and evolution. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, xiv + 797 pp.","Mayr, E. (1969) Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, xi + 428 pp.","Zilli, A. (1996) Colour polymorphism of Callimorpha dominula (Linnaeus, 1758) in Italy, and the problem of polytopic subspecies (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Callimorphinae). Mitteilungen der Munchner entomologischen Gesellschaft, 86, 79 - 98.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Westwood, J. O. (1877) A monograph of the Lepidopterous genus Castnia and some allied groups. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 2 (1), 155 - 207, pls. 28 - 33.","Rothschild, L. W. (1919) Supplementary notes to the review of Houlbert and Oberthur's monograph of Castniinae by Talbot and Prout. Novitates Zoologicae, 26 (1), 1 - 27."]}

cacica (Herrich-Schäffer, [1854]) (Figs. 6D, E) “ Castnia cacica H-S.” Herrich-Schäffer, [1854], Sammlung neuer oder wenig bekannter aussereuropäischer Schmetterlinge: wrapper, pl. [30], fig. 143 [1854]; 56, 79 [1858]. Type material: Boisduval ([1875]) states that he lent his material of Castniidae to Gottlieb August Wilhelm HerrichSchäffer (1799–1874) and it was on that material that most of Herrich-Schäffer’s list of 1854 was based. At the time there were two females of Amauta cacica in Jean Baptiste Boisduval’s (1799–1879) collection (Houlbert 1918), so these specimens are syntypes; both of these syntypes passed via Oberthür to NHMUK. The specimen illustrated on pl. [30], fig. 143 could be regarded as the holotype by monotypy, but as it was a stylised painting there is no way to tell which of the two syntypes it was. The Code also allows for any evidence, published or unpublished, to be taken into account to determine what specimens constitute the type series (Art. 72.4.1.1). We know from Boisduval ([1875]) that he lent his material to Herrich-Schäffer, and we know from Houlbert (1918) that there were two females, so it’s reasonable to regard both specimens as syntypes. One of the syntypes has had a red label added which reads: LECTOTYPE / Castnia / cacica / Boisduval / designated by: / Jacqueline Y. Miller / 1977 (Fig. 6E). The lectotype designation appears not to have been published and we can see no legitimate reason for doing so, therefore both specimens remain syntypes, regardless of the label. Type locality: Given by Herrich-Schäffer as “Mont. Columb.” = mountains of Colombia. However, Boisduval ([1875]) provides further information, stating that “Nous avons reçu cette rare espèce de Goudot ainé, qui a trouvé accouplés le mâle et la femelle sur les bords de la Magdalena, en Colombie”. So, he received the specimens from the French explorer and naturalist-collector Justin Goudot (1802–1850) who found them in copula on the banks of the River Magdalena in Colombia. As the specimens are both females, they clearly cannot have been found in copula but were probably captured resting or in some other activity close to each other, confusing the collector. The type locality is certainly the River Magdalena, Colombia. Taxonomic status: A valid species of Amauta. Male genitalia: (Fig. 4B) Uncus simple, almost quadrate, slightly produced ventrad and with posterior margin unbent. Socii fused with uncus. Gnathos sclerotised, bifid anteriad, and excavate and dentate posteriad. Cucullus and valvula quadrate, with ventral margin of valva oblique, with a somewhat recurved lobe ventrad. Sacculus projected and fused and continuous with saccus arms. Phallus moderately sclerotised, with similar diameter throughout its entire length; its distal section moderately curved, very slightly contorted, double the length of coecum. Phallus possesses a characteristic adornment at its terminal portion with membranous projections of the vesica. Distribution: The species seems to be mostly confined to the Magdalena valley in Colombia. We have only seen reliable records from Boyacá department, we also know of records from Bogotá, Cauca and Valle del Cauca, but these localities seem doubtful (Fig. 13). Discussion: The name Castnia cacica appeared for the first time printed on the wrappers for part 7 of the first series (moths) of the plates of the first volume of Herrich-Schäffer’s Sammlung neuer oder wenig bekannter aussereuropäischer Schmetterlinge, as the unnumbered plates bear no names, only numbers for the figures. Part 7 was published first [May 1854], whereas the relevant text (pp. 53–84) was published later [April 1858]. Häuser et al. (2003) provided rationale why the combination of plates and their wrappers make this and similarly coined names available from the dates of their issue and reviewed the complex publishing history and dating of Herrich-Schäffer’s Sammlung […] aussereuropäischer Schmetterlinge. In recent works the taxa procera (Boisduval, [1875]) and angusta (H. Druce, 1907) have been treated as subspecies of A. cacica but dissection of the male genitalia proves them to be separate species. Material examined: For this study, as well as the types, we have examined 30 males and 49 females from Colombia, mainly from the Magdalena Valley., 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 page 323, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Houlbert, C. (1918) Revision monographique de la sous-famille des Castniinae. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 15, i - xvi + 1 - 730, pls. 437 - 462, figs. 1 - 242.","Hauser, C. L., Bartsch, D., Holstein, J. & Steiner, A. (2003) The Lepidoptera type material of G. A. W. Herrich-Schaffer in the Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Stuttgart. Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, Serie A (Biologie), 657, 1 - 78.","Druce, H. (1907) Descriptions of five new species of Heterocera. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20 (120), 505 - 506."]}

strandiata (Röber, 1927) “ Castnia Strandiata n.nov. ” Röber, 1927, Internationale Entomologische Zeitschrift 21 (14): 107. Type material: Castnia strandiata assumes the holotype of Castnia strandi Röber, 1927, because it is a replacement name (see strandi). Type locality: See strandi. Taxonomic status: Castnia strandiata is a replacement name for the homonymic “ Castnia Strandi ” Röber, 1927. Johannes Röber (1861–1942) immediately realised his mistake in proposing a homonymic name and proposed a replacement in a subsequent publication later that year (Röber 1927b). Originally described as a species, not mentioned by Miller (1995) but synonymised by Lamas (1995). Male genitalia: See strandi. Distribution: See strandi., 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 page 335, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Rober, J. (1927 b) Neue exotische Falter. Internationale entomologische Zeitschrift, 21 (14), 105 - 107.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87."]}

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)., 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, {"references":["Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Houlbert, C. (1918) Revision monographique de la sous-famille des Castniinae. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 15, i - xvi + 1 - 730, pls. 437 - 462, figs. 1 - 242.","Rothschild, L. W. (1919) Supplementary notes to the review of Houlbert and Oberthur's monograph of Castniinae by Talbot and Prout. Novitates Zoologicae, 26 (1), 1 - 27.","Gonzalez, J. M. & Hernandez-Baz, F. (2012) Polillas y taladradores gigantes de la Familia Castniidae (Lepidoptera) de Guatemala. In: Cano, E. B. & Schuster, J. C. (Eds.), Biodiversidad de Guatemala. Vol. 2. Universidad del valle de Guatemala, Guatemala City, pp. 145 - 153."]}

Identification key to Amauta, Vadina and Divana species/subspecies: 1 No purple flush or orange border on hindwing.............................................................. 2 - Hindwing flushed purple with orange border................................................................ 8 2 No postmedian line on forewing......................................................................... 3 - Postmedian line on forewing............................................................................ 4 3 Large white spot at anal angle of hindwing............................................... male V. hodeei kruegeri - Small white spot at anal angle of hindwing................................................ male V. hodeei hodeei 4 Hindwing postmedian band white........................................................................ 5 - Hindwing postmedian band orange....................................................................... 6 - Hindwing postmedian band yellow............................................................... A. angusta - Hindwing postmedian band blue......................................................................... 7 5 Postmedian bands on all four wings very narrow........................................ female V. hodeei kruegeri - Postmedian bands on all four wings wider................................................ female V. hodeei hodeei 6 Forewing discal spot outlined in white; five extradiscal orange spots on hindwing........................... A. cacica - Forewing discal spot not outlined in white; four or rarely five extradiscal orange spots on hindwing............ A. procera 7 Forewing postmedian line very narrow; hindwing postmedian band wide................... A. papilionaris papilionaris - Forewing postmedian line wider; hindwing postmedian band narrower............... A. papilionaris amethystina /lionela 8 Forewing predominantly dark brown...................................................................... 9 - Forewing brown with wide pale diagonal band through discal area............................................. 10 9 Orange border on hindwing consistently wide, reaching tornus.................................. male D. diva hoppi - Orange border on hindwing tapering, not reaching tornus........................................ male D. diva diva 10 Orange border on hindwing unbroken......................................................... D. diva tricolor - Orange border on hindwing broken by black veins.......................................................... 11 11 Orange border on hindwing broken by black veins, forewing apex quite rounded.................... female D. diva diva - Orange border on hindwing little more than orange spots, forewing apex distinctly hooked........... female D. diva hoppi, 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 page 312, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442

hoppi (Hering, 1923) (Figs. 11H, I) “ Castnia (Cyanostola) hoppi Mart. Hering sp.n. ” Hering, 1923, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift “ Iris ” 37 (1/2): 17–18. Type material: The taxon was described from a single male, which is the holotype by monotypy. Gerardo Lamas (pers. comm.) has investigated this and provided the following information: there is a specimen in ETHZ which has an orange “Type” label, like many types in MfN, which has long been regarded as the type. This specimen was apparently sold by Bang-Haas to Biedermann in 1927 and carries another label reading “ Castnia / hoppi m typus! ♂ / det Mart Hering, which is typical of Hering labels in MfN. It also has a label reading “Buenavista, Barbacoas / Westküste, 900mtr. / Colombia / 15 Juli 22.”; as the type was collected at 700m. in 1921 this is not likely to be the type. There is a specimen in MfN, which does not bear a Type label, but has a hand-written label in very faint pencil which is only just legible, reading “Buenavista / 700mt / 13 Juli 1921 ”, it also carries a printed green label reading “Columbien / Dr. A. Scultze (sic!) S. G.”, this last label is probably spurious as it was Werner Hopp who collected the specimen, not Dr Schultze. As Hering used to work in Berlin, we assume that this MfN specimen is the true type and that Hering misread the date from the label when he mentioned “15 Juli” in the description. It is very possible that the determination labels were switched between the specimen now in MfN and that in ETHZ. There are also three males in NHMUK which have been provided with cotype or paratype labels by some misguided past curator, these are all from Rio Micay so cannot be types. Type locality: Given by Hering (1923) as “Colombien, West-küste; Buena visto (sic), am 15. Juli 1921 in 700 m Höhe gef”. Buenavista is in Barbacoas municipality in Nariño department in south-west Colombia. Taxonomic status: A subspecies of Divana diva (Butler, 1870). Originally described as a species, treated as a subspecies of tricolor by Miller (1995), Lamas (1995) sunk both tricolor and hoppi to subspecies of diva, an arrangement we follow. Male genitalia: (Fig. 5D) As in Divana diva diva, the uncus of diva hoppi is shortened in relation to the tegumen. The latter is not as rounded, but socii are also weakly developed. Subscaphium slightly sclerotised basad, and membranous distad. Gnathos is recurved and moderately sclerotised. Valvae are lobate, with numerous setae (not shown in drawing), and shorter when compared with diva diva. Sacculus is also weakly developed with a large setal tuft (not shown in drawing). Saccus blunt. Phallus as in nominotypical subspecies, with distal section stouter, more incrassate and contorted. Vesica spontaneously everted in our preparation, bearing minute spinous cornuti. Even though the male genitalia of diva hoppi is slightly different from diva diva (Figs. 5A, B), it is easy to see that they have a close resemblance. They differ from those of typical Telchin (Figs. 5E, F). Distribution: This is the south-western subspecies of Divana diva. All Colombian specimens have been collected on the western slopes of the Western Cordillera, with records from Valle del Cauca, Cauca and Nariño departments (Vinciguerra 2010; J. Salazar, pers. comm.). This cordillera continues south into the Western Cordillera of Ecuador; all the Ecuadorian specimens have been collected west of this cordillera in Esmeraldas and Carchi provinces (Fig. 16). Discussion: Although it was originally thought that hoppi was an endemic subspecies from south-west Colombia, the advent of reliable north-western Ecuadorian specimens quickly changed such a notion (Vinciguerra 2011). Unfortunately, not much is known of the species, and this subspecies is even more mysterious. Material examined: 24 males and 8 females were examined for this study. As well as the “type”, we have examined COLOMBIA: 2♂ Kolumb, Rio Micai – Joly, 23.5- 18.6.1924, Werner Hopp [one of these specimens bears a Bang-Haas co-type label but cannot be a type because of the collecting locality, it also has labels stating it was determined and dissected by J.Y. Miller]; 1♂ Rio Micay, (Rio Dagua), ex Joicey [this specimen bears spurious cotype and paratype labels]; 1♂ Micay, 400mts, Januar 1925, ex Joicey [this specimen also bears a spurious paratype label]; 1♀ Rio Dagua, ex Kruger 5/3/1929 (NHMUK); 1♂ Tatabro, 200 m., 12.X.1994, leg. L M Constantino; 1♂ Alto Anchicayá, 800 m., 28.XII.1987, leg. L M Constantino; 1♀ idem, 15.I.1988 (LC). ECUADOR: 1♂ Auambi, VI/2013; 2♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, VIII/2012; 1♂ idem, X/2015; 1♀ idem, VII/2014; 1♀ idem, 10/II/2016 (DC); 3♂♂ Rio Chuchuvi, Lita via San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, October 2017; 1♂ idem, April 2016; 1♂ idem, June 2016; 2♂♂ idem, 800 mts., May 2017; 1♂ idem, July 2016; 1♂ Durango, Lita via San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, 500mts., April 2009; 1♂ Rio Mera, Sabolera, Carchi, 450mts., June 2014 (HG); 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, 11/VIII/2009 (RV); 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, VI/2013; 1♂ idem, VIII/2013; 1♂ idem, 550m, IX/2013; 1♀ idem, V/2015; 1♀ idem, 800m, IV/2013 (RW)., 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 328-329, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Hering, E. R. M. (1923) Neue Cossiden und Castniiden. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift \" Iris \", 37 (1 / 2), 11 - 19.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Vinciguerra, R. (2010) Osservazioni sulla distribuzione di Divana diva hoppi (Hering, 1923) (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterologia, 38 (152), 379 - 383.","Vinciguerra, R. (2011) Notes on the distribution of Castnia invaria penelope Schaufuss, 1870 (Lepidoptera, Castniidae. Biodiversity Journal, 2 (3), 149 - 150."]}

velutina (Houlbert, 1917) (Figs. 9A, B) “ Castnia Velutina, sp. nov. ” Houlbert, 1917, Études de Lépidoptérologie comparée 13: 56–57. Type material: Houlbert (1917) does not state the number of type specimens but mentions males, therefore the type series must consist of more than one male. He does not mention female characters in the description but neither does he exclude them, so it is possible that the type series also contained at least one female. In NHMUK there are two males and one female that have printed labels, presumably provided by Oberthür, reading: “D’un envoi fait de Guayaquil, par Erich Feyer à Carl Zacher d’Erfurt, saisi en mer sur le vapeur italien “ Sienna ” et vendu à Toulon par le service des prises le 7-10-1915 en exécution du décret du 18-3-1915.”. They also have syntype labels, so they are considered to be syntypic (Figs. 9A, B). Type locality: Houlbert (1917) states “Cette espèce a été reçu de Guayaquil qui est, comme on le sait, le grand port d’exportation de la République de l’Equateur; mais il est probable qu’elle vient de l’intérieur du pays, c’est-àdire des régions sylvatiques situées à l’est de la chaîne des Andes”. So, as Guayaquil is a large port and unlikely to be the original provenance of the specimens, he surmises that they must come from the interior of the country, that is, wooded regions to the east of the Andes. As the locality given is clearly not the collecting locality it is not possible to narrow the type locality beyond “ Ecuador ”. Taxonomic status: Originally described as a subspecies of papilionaris and treated as such by Miller (1995) and Lamas (1995), it is here sunk to a full synonym (syn. nov.). A junior subjective synonym of Castnia papilionaris papilionaris Walker, [1865] (now in Amauta). Male genitalia: See papilionaris. Distribution: Throughout Ecuador and northern and central Peru, as far south as at least Chanchamayo (Junín department) (Fig. 14). Discussion: Houlbert does not give any specific features to separate velutina from papilionaris. The only example of papilionaris available to Houlbert was Westwood’s (1877) stylised figure (Fig. 8C) (see amethystina and affinis), so any comparisons he made were meaningless. Comparing a large series of velutina with the few known specimens of p. papilionaris, it is not possible to see any consistent differences; therefore, we hereby synonymise velutina with papilionaris. Material examined: For this study, as well as the types, we have examined 31 males and 26 females from Ecuador, and 32 males and 24 females from Peru, as well as 25 males and 10 females for which we do not have locality data., 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 338-339, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Houlbert, C. (1917) Diagnoses de Castnies nouvelles et rectification de quelques noms indument employes. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 13, 49 - 87, pls. 1 - 4.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Westwood, J. O. (1877) A monograph of the Lepidopterous genus Castnia and some allied groups. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 2 (1), 155 - 207, pls. 28 - 33."]}

papilionaris (Walker, [1865]) (Figs. 8C–H, 9A–D) “ CASTNIA PAPILIONARIS.” Walker, [1865], List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, 31: 42–43. Type material: Walker ([1865]) lists only one specimen “ From Mr. Stevens’ collection”, which is therefore the holotype by monotypy of this taxon. The holotype, a male, is in NHMUK (Fig. 8D). Type locality: The original description gives “ Bogota,” Colombia. This is confirmed by the label on the holotype. Taxonomic status: A valid species of Amauta. Male genitalia: (Fig. 4E) Uncus simple with wide and round almost pointed apex. Gnathos moderately sclerotised, bifid anteriad. Cucullus and valvula almost quadrate, slightly rounded apically. Valvae are short and wide with ventral margin sharply cut. Sacculus projected and continues with the arms of the saccus. Phallus curved, its distal section three times the length of coecum, narrowed beyond junction with this, then straight, with subterminal portion enlarged and barely or incompletely contorted. Apex of phallus with a terminal, sclerotised section. The vesica opens to left proximad to distal sclerotised termination of phallus. Distribution: Venezuelan specimens are known from Mérida and Táchira states.The only Colombian specimens we have seen with precise data are from Boyacá department. We have also seen specimens from the Rio Magdalena and Rio Dagua. It is also found throughout Ecuador and northern and central Peru as far south as Chanchamayo (Junín department) (Fig. 14). Discussion: The nominotypical subspecies has always been considered to be confined to Colombia where it appears to be very rare and is only known from old specimens. It is replaced to the north in Panama by ssp. amethystina (Houlbert, 1917) which is also very rare. The very few specimens known from Venezuela appear to be intermediate but are probably referable to p. papilionaris. Subspecies velutina was described from Ecuador but we can see no justification for this subspecific separation (see velutina). We also extend the range of velutina to include northern and central Peru (see affinis). Material examined: 8 males and 4 females were examined for this study. As well as the holotype, the following specimens were examined: VENEZUELA: 1♂ Merida, (Briceño) (NMHUK); 1♂ Via Chorro del Indio, 1200 m, V- [19]82, C.F. R., crepuscular; 1♀ idem V-[19]82 7pm (CFR). COLOMBIA: 1♂ Rio Magdalena; 1♂, 1♀ Rio Dagua, W. Colombia, 600–1000m., W Hopp; 1♀ N. Grenada, ex Smith, ex Druce (NMHUK); 1♂ F. Ovalles [this is the name of the collector/supplier]; ♀, F. Johnson; 2♂♂ Muzo, F. Johnson (AMNH). We have also studied all the specimens listed under velutina., 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 page 332, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Houlbert, C. (1917) Diagnoses de Castnies nouvelles et rectification de quelques noms indument employes. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 13, 49 - 87, pls. 1 - 4."]}

diva (Butler, 1870) (Figs. 11A–E) “ Castnia Diva sp. nov. ” Butler, 1870, Lepidoptera Exotica, or descriptions and illustrations of exotic Lepidoptera: 46, Pl. XVII, fig. 1, 2. Type material: Butler (1870) described the male and female, so there was more than one type. There are two male syntypes in NHMUK, one is labelled “ Chontales, Nicaragua ” with another label reading “ C. Diva Butl type”, the other has a label reading “ Chontales, E. M. Janson ” both are ex Druce and ex Joicey, no others could be found. Type locality: Butler (1870) gives the type locality as “ Chontales (Janson)”. Chontales is a department on the east shore of Lake Cocibolca in Nicaragua. E. W. Janson (1822–1891) was the proprietor of a London Natural History business who published Butler’s work in which this species was described. Taxonomic status: A valid species of Divana. Male genitalia: (Figs. 5A, B) Uncus somewhat shortened in relation to the tegumen. Socii are weakly developed. Subscaphium slightly sclerotised basad, but somewhat membranous distad. Gnathos is moderately sclerotised, recurved. Valva lobate, with numerous setae (not shown in drawing). Valva slightly obcordate posteriad. Sacculus weakly developed and bearing a large setal tuft. Saccus blunt. Phallus is moderately sclerotised and recurved, with section beyond coecum long and slender, more than three times the latter, and is distally contorted. Vesica spontaneously partly everted in our preparations and bearing very minute spinous cornuti. Even though the specimens used for dissection were of different size and were collected in Mexico (Fig. 5A) and Costa Rica (Fig. 5B), their genitalia are very similar, hinting that they certainly are the same taxon. Differences with typical Telchin species are noted (Figs. 5E, 5F). Distribution: The nominotypical subspecies of Divana diva is found from Mexico to Panama (Fig. 16). Material examined: For this study, as well as the syntypes of diva, we have examined 22 males and 4 females from Panama (mainly Chiriquí), and 7 males and 3 females with no locality data. We have also studied 71 males and 18 females from other Central American countries as follows: MEXICO: 1♂ Escuintla, Chiapas, 10/VI/1955, Coll. T.W. Davies; 1♂ idem, 10/IV/1962 (CAS); 1♂ Veracruz, VI/1961; 1♂ El Vigía, Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz, V/1964, leg. R. F. de la Maza R.; 1♂ Estación Biológica Los Tuxtlas, Sontecomapan, Veracruz, 7/VI/1975, leg. H. Pérez R.; 1♂ Chiltepec, Oaxaca, V/1970, leg. A. Díaz F.; 1♂ Metates, Oaxaca, 20/V/1980; 1♂ Chiapas, V/1970; 1♂ Santa Rosa, Chiapas, VII/1990, leg. J. Saldaña; 1♂ idem, VII/1991; 1♀ Sontecomapan, Veracruz, V/1955, leg. T. Escalante (IBUNAM); 1♂ El Vigía, Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz, VIII/2014; 1♀ idem, VIII/2015; 3♂♂ Santa Rosa, Chiapas, IX/2020 (BLG); 2♂♂ El Vigía, Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz, 20/V/2014; 1♂ idem, 20/VI/2019; 2♂♂ idem, 5/VII/2019; 2♂♂ idem, 21/VI/2021; 3♂♂ idem, 29/VI/2021; 1♂ idem, 5/VI/2021; 2♂♂ idem, 7/VII/2021; 1♂ idem, 12/ VII/2021; 1♀ idem, 5/VII/2021; 1♂ Soconusco, Chiapas, 25/VII/2014 (JG); 1♂ Ocozocoautla de Espinosa, Chiapas, 1500m, IX/1987, leg. O.S. Guzmán; 2♂♂ Oculapo, Chiapas, IX/1994; 1♀ Chiapas, IV/1998 (DC); 2♂♂ 42km N of Ocozocoautla de Espinosa, Chiapas, 1500m, VIII/1987, leg. O.S. Guzmán (RV); 6♂♂ 3♀♀ idem (Anon); 1♂ Puerto Eligio, Oaxaca, 1400m, IX/1987; 2♂♂ Eloxochitlán, San José Buenavista, Oaxaca, 1200m, 11-12/VII/2018; 1♂ Rancho Santa Rosa, San Antonio, Chiapas, 1/VIII/1987; 1♂ ejido Bocas de Chajul, municipio de Ocosingo, Chiapas, 300m, juillet 1985; 1♂ 1♀ 42km N of Ocozocoautla de Espinosa, Chiapas, 1500m, VIII/1987, leg. O.S. Guzmán (RW). BELIZE: 1♂ Toledo district, Bladen reserve, lowland forest creek reef Bladen River, 1/VIII/2008 (DC). GUATEMALA: 2♂♂ Zapote, G.C. Champion, ex Godman-Salvin; 1♀ Guatemala, Salvin (NHMUK); 2♂♂ San Sebastian, Retalhuleu, 1930, L. Thiel (CUIC); 1♂ Antigua, June 2006 (AB); 2♂♂ Escuintla, 11/VI/2008 (RW). HONDURAS: 1♂ Honduras, ex Crowley; 2♂♂ 1♀ San Pedro Sula, 1895, E. Wittkugel (NHMUK); 1♂ La Ceiba, 6/VIII/1998 (RW). NICARAGUA: 1♂ Nicaragua, ex Cutter; 1♂ Chontales, T. Belt, ex Godman-Salvin; 1♂ 1♀ Chontales, T. Belt, ex Druce, ex Joicey (NHMUK); 1♂ 1♀ Great Falls, Pis Pis river, 10 miles NW of Eden, 26/ V/1922, Wharton Huber (ANS); 1♂ Chocoyero, 400m, 13/VII/1999 (RW). COSTA RICA: 1♂ 2♀♀ ex Druce, ex Joicey; 3♂♂ Esperanza; 1♂ Car [r]illo; 1♂ idem 16/V/03, Underwood; 1♀ idem 6/VII/03; 2♀♀ A.G.M. Gillott (NHMUK); 1♂ Turrialba, 30/VII/1963, M. Irwin & D.Q. Cavagnaro (CAS); 1♀ Fila Rio Sucio, Carillo, San Jose, 700m., 4-V-1983, leg. R Hesterberg (HG); 1♂ San Vito (RW)., 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 page 325, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442

oberthueri (Houlbert, 1917) (Figs. 7D, E) “ C. Oberthüri, sp. nov. ” Houlbert, 1917, Études de Lépidoptérologie comparée 13: 52–53, Pl. 3, Fig. 3. Type material: Houlbert (1917) states that more than 30 specimens exist in the Oberthür collection. These are all syntypes and are now in NHMUK. There is one male from Zaruma and 11 males and 14 females from Balzapamba collected by Marc Hüe de Mathan (1876–1908) which are ex Oberthür and are definitely all syntypes of oberthueri (e.g. figs. 7D, E). There are four additional males and two females from Balzapamba which were not collected by de Mathan; these may also be syntypes, but we cannot be sure whether Houlbert examined them. There is also a male from Balzapamba in (MHNG) (ex Ch. Blachier) with the same de Mathan data, if this specimen was still in Oberthür’s collection when Houlbert examined it, it is also a syntype. Type locality: According to Houlbert (1917, 1918) all the types come from Balzapamba (Bolívar province) and Zaruma (El Oro province) in Ecuador. There is a large distance between these localities in southern Ecuador. Taxonomic status: A junior subjective synonym of Castnia angusta H. Druce, 1907 (now in Amauta). Originally described as a species but synonymised by Miller (1995). Male genitalia: See angusta. Distribution: Not relevant. Discussion: Houlbert (1917) described oberthueri in ignorance of Druce’s description of angusta. He was then informed about this by George Talbot (1882–1952) and published a note to this effect with the description of angusta in Houlbert (1918). Apparently, Houlbert refused to accept Druce’s description as it was not accompanied by an illustration and continued to give his own name priority. Material examined: For this study we have examined all known syntypes., 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 page 331, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Houlbert, C. (1917) Diagnoses de Castnies nouvelles et rectification de quelques noms indument employes. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 13, 49 - 87, pls. 1 - 4.","Houlbert, C. (1918) Revision monographique de la sous-famille des Castniinae. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 15, i - xvi + 1 - 730, pls. 437 - 462, figs. 1 - 242.","Druce, H. (1907) Descriptions of five new species of Heterocera. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20 (120), 505 - 506.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177."]}

angusta (H. Druce, 1907) (Fig. 7C) “ Castnia angusta, sp. n. ” H. Druce, 1907, The Annals and Magazine of natural History (7) 20 (120): 505. Type material: All the information is compatible with Druce (1907) having described this taxon from a single male in his collection, this would therefore be the holotype by [likely] monotypy (fig. 7C). The specimen passed from Druce to James John Joicey (1870–1932), and it is now in NHMUK; examination shows it to be a female and not a male as Druce surmised. Type locality: Given by Herbert Druce (1846–1913) as “ Ecuador, Los Lanos” (sic), although on the specimen label it is spelt “Los Lanos”. Los Lanos is in Chimborazo province in southern Ecuador. Taxonomic status: A valid species of Amauta. It was originally described as a species by Druce (1907) and treated as such by Miller (1995), but then sunk to a subspecies of A. cacica by Lamas (1995). It is herein restored to a valid species, stat. rest. Male genitalia: (Fig. 4C) Uncus simple, almost quadrate but not quite; moderately sclerotised, as is the tegumen. Gnathos strongly sclerotised, bifid anteriad and excavate and dentate posteriad. Cucullus and valvula almost quadrate, with ventral margin of valva somewhat oblique and with sacculus projected. Phallus moderately curved, not contorted, its distal section slightly more than twice the length of the coecum and tapered, wider at the connection with coecum, and half its width by the middle section. Then, the phallus shows a somewhat abrupt enlargement, as sclerotised as the rest of the structure. From there it becomes thin towards the apex. Subterminal portion of phallus not enlarged, and terminal one with a small projection. Phallus completely different from that of A. cacica. Distribution: This species appears to be found throughout Ecuador and northward into the western Cordillera in Colombia (Fig. 13), although we have some doubts if localities from eastern Ecuador are really reliable. Discussion: We have long thought that this taxon was probably not conspecific with Amauta cacica as it is the only taxon in the group in which the postmedian bands on both fore- and hindwings are the same colour, and the hindwing band is much narrower than any of the other related taxa. Most recent studies have treated it as a subspecies of A. cacica but a dissection of the male genitalia shows that it is clearly a separate species. The distribution seems to be similar to that of Vadina hodeei kruegeri and Divana diva hoppi. Material examined: For this study, as well as the types of angusta and oberthueri, we have examined an additional 40 males and 29 females from various parts of Ecuador and 7 males and 2 females from Colombia as follows: 1♂ Colombia (MGCL); 1♂ Rio Dagua, W Rosenberg; 1♂ Rio Magdalena, (NHMUK); 1♂ Putumayo: Sibundoy a 2100 m, hembra, 18-XI-2008, F. Narváez leg.; 1♂ Rio Cauca, Caldas; 1♂ San José del Palmar, Chocó; 1♂ Rio Garrapatas, Cauca Valley; 1♀ Caldas: Anserma-Pidrias, 1000 m, 3-IV-1998, J. Vargas leg.; 1♀ Sibundoy, Putumayo (JS)., 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 page 322, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Druce, H. (1907) Descriptions of five new species of Heterocera. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20 (120), 505 - 506.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87."]}

Taxonomic catalogue affinis Rothschild, 1919 (Figs. 9E–G) “ Castnia (Amauta) papilionaris affinis, subsp. nov. ” Rothschild, 1919, Novitates zoologicae 26 (1): 3. Type material: Described from eight syntypes as follows: 3♂♂, 1♀ Yahuarmayo, S. E. Peru, 1,200 ft., February– March 1912, (H. and C. Watkins) (figs. 9F, G); 1♂ Pozuzo, Huánuco [now in Pasco department (Gerardo Lamas pers. comm.)], 800– 1,000 m. = 2,600 –3,250 ft. (W. Hoffmanns); 2♀♀ Chanchamayo, Peru; 1♂ Songo, Bolivia (Garlepp) (fig. 9E). At the time of description all syntypes were in the collection of Lionel Walter Rothschild (1868–1937), they are now in NHMUK. Lectotype designation: After examining the syntypes it appears that two different subspecies are represented in the syntypic series. Only the specimens from Bolivia and Yahuarmayo, which is in Puno department, south-east Peru, appear to be different, the rest are referable to ssp. papilionaris (= velutina). The male syntype from Songo, Bolivia collected by Otto (1864–1959) and Gustav Garlepp (1862–1907) (fig. 9E) best shows the differentiating features of this subspecies and is hereby designated as lectotype to fix it as the sole name-bearing type of Castnia (Amauta) papilionaris affinis Rothschild, 1919, hereafter Amauta papilionaris lionela Lamas, 1995. All other syntypes become paralectotypes. Type locality: This is now fixed by the lectotype designation as Songo, Bolivia. This refers to the Rio Zongo in La Paz department, Bolivia. It is not possible to pinpoint the locality any more precisely. Taxonomic status: The name is a junior primary homonym of Castnia affinis Houlbert, 1917 and was replaced by Amauta papilionaris lionela Lamas, 1995, which is now the valid name for the taxon. It is here considered to be a weakly defined subspecies of A. papilionaris (Walker, [1865]), closest to the Central American populations known as ssp. amethystina, the two possibly forming a so-called polytopic subspecies (cf. Mayr 1963, 1969; Zilli 1996). Male genitalia: (Fig. 4F) Uncus is simple, having a wide and round but almost pointed apex. Gnathos slightly sclerotised, bifid anteriad. Cucullus and valvula almost quadrate, and slightly rounded apically. Valva short and wide. Ventral margin of valva sharply cut. Sacculus projected and continues with the arms of the saccus. Phallus curved with distal section three times the length of coecum, narrowed beyond their junction, becoming straight after, with subterminal portion enlarged. Aedeagus contortion is incomplete. Apex of phallus with a terminal, sclerotised section. Vesica opens sinistrally and proximad to sclerotised end of phallus. Distribution: This subspecies seems to be restricted to Bolivia, recorded from La Paz and Cochabamba departments, and south-eastern Peru, currently only confirmed from Puno and Cuzco departments (Fig. 14). Discussion: Rothschild (1919) originally described the subspecies by stating: “This form is nearest to velutina, but the ♀♀ have the bands almost as broad as in Westwood’s figure of papilionaris papilionaris ”. Unfortunately, Westwood’s (1877) figure (Fig. 8C) is highly stylised and in terms of the width of the postmedian bands bears little resemblance to the holotype of papilionaris papilionaris (Fig. 8D). Having studied the type series of affinis, the width of the forewing pale yellow band appears to be widest in the Bolivian specimens and marginally less wide in specimens from Puno, Peru. A large series from Huánuco, Peru (Figs. 9C, D) appears to be identical to specimens from Ecuador, which have traditionally been assigned to ssp. velutina (now synonymised with p. papilionaris, see below). The paralectotypes from Chanchamayo, which is in Junín, Peru, are similar to Huánuco specimens, but some specimens show a slight broadening of the bands, which could suggest a cline. The hindwing blue band is of variable width in all populations, but it does seem to be narrower in the most southerly representatives of affinis. We therefore reserve the name lionela for specimens of A. papilionaris from Bolivia and southern Peru. The phenotype is in fact analogous to the northernmost subspecies of papilionaris – amethystina. Specimens examined from San Martín, Huánuco and Junín departments in Peru are referable to ssp. papilionaris, those from Puno and Cuzco to ssp. lionela. We have not seen specimens from other departments in southern Peru so cannot comment on these. Material examined: 12 males and 1 female were examined for this study. As well as the former syntypes, the following specimens were examined: BOLIVIA: 1♂ Songo, (Garlepp) (NMHUK); 1♂ Rurrenabaque, XII- 2001 (DC); 1♂ Rio Palmar, Cochabamba, 1100 m (MZ). PERU: 1♂ Peru (MGCL); 1♂ Yahuarmayo, S. E. Peru, 1,200 ft., February–March 1912, (H. and C. Watkins) (NMHUK); 1♂ Chontachaca, Rio Pilcopata, Cuzco, 850m, IV-1996 (MB); 1♂ Chontachaca, Rio Pilcopata, Cuzco, XI -2016; 1♂ Rio Marcapata, Cuzco, XII-2016 (RW). As noted above, for comparison, we also examined a large series of A. p. papilionaris from Huánuco, Peru, and 4 males and 6 females from Chanchamayo, including the paralectotypes of affinis from these localities which we do not consider correspond to the concept of the taxon as restricted herein., 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 315-317, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Rothschild, L. W. (1919) Supplementary notes to the review of Houlbert and Oberthur's monograph of Castniinae by Talbot and Prout. Novitates Zoologicae, 26 (1), 1 - 27.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Houlbert, C. (1917) Diagnoses de Castnies nouvelles et rectification de quelques noms indument employes. Etudes de Lepidopterologie comparee, 13, 49 - 87, pls. 1 - 4.","Mayr, E. (1963) Animal species and evolution. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, xiv + 797 pp.","Mayr, E. (1969) Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, xi + 428 pp.","Zilli, A. (1996) Colour polymorphism of Callimorpha dominula (Linnaeus, 1758) in Italy, and the problem of polytopic subspecies (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Callimorphinae). Mitteilungen der Munchner entomologischen Gesellschaft, 86, 79 - 98.","Druce, H. (1907) Descriptions of five new species of Heterocera. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20 (120), 505 - 506.","Rebel, H. (1915) [Notes]. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-koniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 65 (9 / 10), 211 - 216, 3 figs.","Westwood, J. O. (1877) A monograph of the Lepidopterous genus Castnia and some allied groups. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 2 (1), 155 - 207, pls. 28 - 33."]}

discomaculata (R. Krüger, 1928) “ Castnia cacica forma discomaculata Krüger. ” R. Krüger, 1928, Entomologische Zeitschrift 41 (22): 442–443. Type material: Described by Krüger (1928) from some males and females, which must be considered as syntypes. Most other types of castniid taxa described by Krüger are in NHMUK but the discomaculata types cannot be found there. There are a few Krüger types in MfN so it is possible they may be there. Type locality: Given as “Ost=Columbien”, thus Eastern Colombia. The types could not be found, and we know of no other records from eastern Colombia, so this locality must be doubtful. Taxonomic status: A junior subjective synonym of Castnia cacica Herrich-Schäffer, [1854] (now in Amauta). There are no features evident to separate this from typical cacica. Male genitalia: Not available. Distribution: Not relevant. Discussion: The Code (ICZN 1999: art. 45.6.4.) requires that a name given as a “form” before 1961 is considered to be of subspecific rank unless its author “expressly gave it infrasubspecific rank, or the content of the work unambiguously reveals that the name was proposed for an infrasubspecific entity”. In the original description by Krüger (1928) there are no clues that the author was considering f. discomaculata as infrasubspecific, rather there is contrary evidence. In fact, he was not describing a singleton but several specimens from Eastern Colombia as opposed to others from other places, including “anderen columbischen Lokalitäten”, where nominotypical cacica would occur. Further, he states that his form differs from “den bisher beschriebenen Formen oder Aberrationen”, which reveals that he was making use of the term “aberration” and did not employ it for discomaculata. We therefore consider this as an available name, to be retained in synonymy with nominotypical cacica., 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 page 325, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Kruger, R. (1928) Castnia cacica forma discomaculata Kruger. Entomologische Zeitschrift, 41 (22), 442 - 443.","ICZN [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature] (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4 th Edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c / o The Natural History Museum, London, xxix + 305 pp."]}

chiriquiensis (Strand, 1913) (Figs. 11D–E) “ C. diva […] form chiriquiensis form. nov. ” Strand, 1913, In: Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde 6: 13, Pl. 6, row d. Type material: Strand (1913b) wrote “Auffallend ist auch die starke Variabilität in der Grösse; von chiriquiensis liegen mir ♂♂ von 55—90 mm vor (die Type ist 55 mm)” [The variability in size is also remarkable, there are before me ♂♂ of chiriquiensis from 55 to 90 mm (the type is 55 mm)]; this means that the “ holotype ” can be narrowed down thanks to its wingspan of 55 mm, which is very unusual for this taxon. An original specimen with such a wingspan is in MfN and we consider it to be the holotype. In MfN there are also three other males that appear to be those mentioned in the original description, which should therefore be considered as paratypes. The holotype originally had a hand-written label reading “ Chiriqui Trötsch”, a pink “Type” label and a Strand determination label, this can be seen on an old photograph (Gerardo Lamas, pers. comm.), however, it was stolen together with many other types from Berlin some years ago by an unscrupulous dealer. Several years later a collection was given to the museum by the heirs of Ernst Jugl which contained many of the stolen specimens, which it is believed he bought from the dealer in question. Unfortunately, the original labels had been disposed of to hide their provenance. The 55 mm-holotype of chiriquiensis now bears a green determination label like all these specimens, and typed labels with “ Chiriqui ”, “ex coll Ernst Jugl” and “ex coll Staudinger”. A male was found in NHMUK with the data “ Chiriqui ” and a Strand determination label, this may be another paratype, which would demonstrate that the original series was scattered, but there is no way to be sure. Type locality: Strand (1913b) calls it a form from Chiriquí, so that is the type locality. Chiriquí is the name of a town, a volcano, and a province in south-west Panama. Taxonomic status: Originally described as a subspecies of diva and treated as such by Miller (1995) and Lamas (1995), this nominal taxon is here synonymised with Castnia diva diva Butler, 1870 (syn. nov.), so it is a junior subjective synonym of that taxon (now in Divana). Male genitalia: Not available. Distribution: This taxon is found only in Chiriquí province, Panama. We have seen specimens from Costa Rica referred to as ssp. chiriquiensis, but as we are unable to detect any differences in any of the Central American populations, this is irrelevant (Fig. 16). Discussion: There is a large series of 19 males and 4 females from Panama in NHMUK, along with 14 males and 8 females from other Central American countries including two syntypes of diva diva, we have also examined 31 males and 8 females from Central America in other collections. We can see no differences between specimens from Chiriquí and those from other Central American countries. Material examined: 22 males and 4 females from Panama were examined for this study., 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 page 324, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Strand, E. (1913 b) Gattung: Castnia F. In: Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde. 6 (1). A. Kernen, Stuttgart, pp. 7 - 17, pls. 1 - 8.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87."]}

tricolor (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874) (Figs. 11F, G) “ Castnia tricolor F.” C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874, Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Befehlen des Commodore B. von Wütterstorf-Urbair Zoologische Theil, Zweiter Band. Zweite Abtheilung: Lepidoptera: 7, Pl. LXXIX, fig. 3. Type material: C. Felder & R. Felder (1874) give ♂, Bogota (Lindig), Chiriqui (M.C.), so there was more than one syntype. There is a single syntype with a label reading “ Bogota / Lindig / type” in NHMUK, no others could be found. Specimens from Chiriquí would be referable to ssp. diva, not tricolor. Lectotype designation: The syntype has had a red label added which reads: LECTOTYPE / Castnia / tricolor / Felder / designated by: / Jacqueline Y. Miller / 1977 (fig. 11F). This lectotype designation appears not to have been published so is invalid. However, because the Felders’ original type locality included both Bogotá, from whence comes what is now generally accepted as tricolor, and Chiriquí, where ssp. diva is found, a lectotype designation is necessary to fix both the taxon identity and type locality. Therefore, the syntype from Bogotá in NHMUK is hereby designated as lectotype to fix it as the sole name-bearing type of the nominal taxon Divana diva tricolor (C. & R. Felder, 1874) (Fig. 11F). If any other syntypes are found, they would be paralectotypes. Type locality: This is now fixed by the lectotype designation as Bogotá, Colombia, although this is almost certainly a generic locality designation (see “A note about locality data” in the introduction). Taxonomic status: A subspecies of Divana diva (Butler, 1870). Originally described as a species and treated as such by Miller (1995), Lamas (1995) sunk it to a subspecies of diva, an arrangement we follow. Male genitalia: (Fig. 5C) Similar to diva diva, this subspecies also has an uncus shortened in relation to the tegumen. Socii are also weakly developed. Subscaphium slightly sclerotised basad, and membranous distad. Gnathos moderately sclerotised, and recurved. Valvae lobate, with numerous setae as in diva diva. Valvae shorter than in diva diva, in relation to the whole genital armature, but as in the other diva subspecies, it is also obcordate posteriad, slightly concave anteriad. Sacculus weakly developed, but the setal tuft is smaller and shorter than in diva diva. Saccus blunt. Phallus as in nominotypical subspecies, slightly more incrassate and contorted distally; vesica as in other subspecies. Even though it is slightly different from the other subspecies, there is no doubt that they are closely related. Distribution: The nominotypical subspecies seems to be confined to the Magdalena valley in Colombia. We have only seen reliable records from Boyacá department (see also Vinciguerra 2010) (Fig. 16). Discussion: In the past there has been much confusion over the authorship and dates of taxa described in the “Reise … Novara…”. Miller (1995) assigned tricolor to Felder & Rogenhofer, 1875, Lamas (1995) then assigned it solely to R. Felder, 1874. Here, we follow Nässig & Speidel (2007) in assigning it to C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874. Material examined: A large series of males and females was examined for this study. Most were from Otanche or Muzo in Boyacá department., 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 336-337, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Felder, C. & Felder, R. (1874) s. n. In: Felder, C., Felder, R. & Rogenhofer, A. F., Reise der osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Befehlen des Commodore B. von Wutterstorf-Urbair Zoologische Theil, Zweiter Band. Zweite Abtheilung: Lepidoptera. Atlas. Heft 4. C. Gerold's Sohn, Wien, pls. 75 - 107.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Vinciguerra, R. (2010) Osservazioni sulla distribuzione di Divana diva hoppi (Hering, 1923) (Lepidoptera: Castniidae). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterologia, 38 (152), 379 - 383.","Nassig, W. A. & Speidel, W. (2007) On the authorships of the Lepidoptera Atlas of the \" Reise der Novara \", with a list of the taxa of Bombycoidea [s. l.] therein described (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Bombycoidea). Senckenbergiana biologica, 87, 63 - 74."]}

kruegeri (Niepelt, 1927) (Figs. 10D, E) “ Castnia krügeri Niep. sp. n. ” Niepelt, 1927, Internationale Entomologische Zeitschrift 21 (28): 239–240, pl. 2. Type material: 1 male discovered by Herrn Dr. Eugen Krüger between March and May 1927 (Fig. 10D); this specimen is the holotype by monotypy and is in MfN. Type locality: West-Colombia at 500 metres. Very probably from Yaculá or its surrounding forests, Nariño Department, where Krüger was collecting during the first few months of 1927 (see Discussion below). It cannot be further restricted. Taxonomic status: A valid subspecies of Vadina hodeei (Oberthür, 1881). Originally described as a species but not mentioned by Miller (1995), it was sunk to a subspecies of V. hodeei by Lamas (1995). Male genitalia: (Fig. 4H) Uncus with apex bifurcate. Uncus and anterior section of gnathos apophysis are more sclerotised than the tegumen. Gnathos sclerotised, bifid and pointed anteriad, excavate posteriad. Cucullus and valvula rounded. Ventral margin of valva slightly concave. Sacculus quadrate. Phallus curved, its distal section twice the length of coecum, slightly tapered. Subterminal portion of phallus enlarged. Terminal portion of phallus barely contorted and enlarged finishing in a somewhat pointed tip. Distribution: This is the south-western subspecies of Vadina hodeei. All Colombian specimens were collected on the western slopes of the Western Cordillera, with records from Valle del Cauca and Nariño departments (González & Salazar 2003; González et al. 2013). This cordillera continues south into the Western Cordillera of Ecuador; all the Ecuadorian specimens were collected west of this cordillera in Esmeraldas province (see González et al. 2013) (pl. 15). Discussion: From 28 th January to 23 rd July 1927 Krüger was stationed in Yaculá, Nariño department, southwest Colombia (Pyrcz 2004), the label on the holotype reads “März-Juni 27”. This area appears to have been one of Krüger’s favourite Lepidoptera hunting grounds in Colombia, characterised by thick, humid piedmont forests typical of the “Pacific-Chocó Biogeographic Region”. It is part of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena biogeographic hotspot that also includes the western region of Ecuador (Myers et al. 2000). The habitus of kruegeri is very consistent along the western slopes of the Colombian and Ecuadorian Western Cordillera based on the specimens we have examined, and there appear to be no intermediate phenotypes between this and nominotypical hodeei. The main difference in the male is that the white spot at the anal angle of the hindwing is much larger in kruegeri; in the female the white postmedian bands on all four wings are much narrower in kruegeri and both sexes are smaller than the nominotypical subspecies. Material examined: 30 males and 5 females were examined for this study.As well as the type, we have examined COLOMBIA: 1♂ Rio Calima, VII-1984 (MGCL); 1♂ Queremal, Valle, 9.IV.1985, J. Salazar leg (MHN-UC); 1♀ Anchicayá, Valle, 500 m., 15.VII.1992, leg. Dahners (MUSENUV); 1♂ Calima valley, Valle del Cauca, 1200m., III- 1990 (MS). ECUADOR: 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, II/2012, 33.985 (RBINS); 1♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, II/2012; 1♂ idem, II/2012; 1♂ idem, V/2016; 1♂ idem, 4/II/2017 (DC); 2♂♂, 2♀♀ Esmeraldas, (MB); 1♂ Lita, Carchi; 1♀ Durango, Esmeraldas, III/2012 (MS); 2♂♂ Rio Chuchuvi, Lita via San Lorenzo, Esmeraldas, 750mts., Sep 2015 1♂ idem, Nov 2015; 1♂ idem, 800mts., July 2016; 1♂ idem, May 2017; 1♂ idem, January 2018; 1♂ idem, March 2018 (HG); 2♂♂ Durango, Esmeraldas, X/2010 (RV); 2♂♂ Chuchuvi, Esmeraldas, XI/2011; 1♂ idem, III/2012; 1♂ idem, X/2012; 1♂ idem, I/2014; 1♂ idem, X/2014; 1♀ idem, XI/2017 (RW); 1♂ Durango, Esmeraldas, 400– 600m., X/2010; 1♂ Dt. Esmeraldas, 600–1000m., III/2012 (Anon)., 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 page 330, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Niepelt, W. (1927) Neue Falter von Columbien. Internationale entomologische Zeitschrift, 21 (28), 239 - 241.","Oberthur, C. (1881) Lepidopteres d'Amerique. Etudes d'Entomologie, 6, xxv - xxvi + 27 - 38, pls. 4 - 6 + 10.","Miller, J. Y. (1995) Castniidae. In: Heppner, J. B. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 2. Hyblaeoidea-Pyraloidea-Tortricoidea. Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera / Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, Florida, pp. 133 - 137 + 176 - 177.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Gonzalez, J. M. & Salazar, J. A. (2003) Adicion a la lista de Castnidos (Lepidoptera: Castniidae: Castniinae) conocidos de Colombia. Boletin Cientifico del Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad de Caldas, Manizales, 7, 47 - 56.","Gonzalez, J. M., Vinciguerra, R. & Rios, S. D. (2013) Amauta hodeei (Oberthur, 1881) and its subspecies (Lepidoptera: Castniidae), with comments on the life and times of Brother Apolinar Maria. Biodiversity Journal, 4 (2), 275 - 280.","Pyrcz, T. W. (2004) La trayectoria del lepidopterologo aleman Eugen Kruger. Boletin Cientifico Museo de Historia Natural de Caldas, 8, 173 - 187.","Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403 (6772), 853 - 858. https: // doi. org / 10.1038 / 35002501"]}

hodeei (Oberthür, 1881) (Figs. 10A–C) “ Castnia Hodeei, OBERTHüR.” Oberthür, 1881, Études d’Entomologie 6: 29–30, Pl. IV, fig. 1. Type material: All the evidence indicates that this species was described from a single female collected by Eujenio Garzón. We therefore consider the specimen as the holotype by [likely] monotypy (Fig. 10C). At the time of description, it was in the collection of Charles Oberthür (1845–1924), it is now in NHMUK. Type locality: Oberthür (1881) states “Superbe espèce découverte en Nouvelle-Grenade par l’indien Eujenio Garzon, qui chassait autrefois pour le compte du regretté M. Steinheil, de Munich, et de qui nous avons reçu une collection formée surtout aux environs de Santa-Rosa et de Carare.”; Nouvelle-Grenade is now known as Colombia. We believe that Oberthür misinterpreted the locality and that rather than the specimens being collected at Santa Rosa and Carare they were collected at Santa Rosa del Carare, which is a place in Santander province at 6°20’33.3”N 74°00’35.9”W. Oberthür does point out that the collection he received from Garzon was collected mainly at the two localities so it cannot be certain that this is the type locality, but it does seem highly probable. Taxonomic status: A valid species of Vadina fixed as the type species of this genus in the present publication, comb. nov. Male genitalia: (Fig. 4G) Uncus and anterior section of gnathos apophysis slightly sclerotised, more so than the tegumen. Gnathos slightly sclerotised, bifid and pointed anteriad. Cucullus and valvula rounded. Ventral margin of valva slightly concave. Sacculus almost quadrate. Ventral margin of valve slightly concave. Phallus slightly to moderately curved, its distal section slightly larger than twice the length of coecum, very slightly tapered.Subterminal portion of phallus enlarged. Terminal portion of phallus not contorted, open caudally and widely enlarged finishing in an almost pointed tip. Distribution: This appears to be a rare species, the nominotypical subspecies of which seems to be confined to northern and central areas of Colombia, particularly in the Magdalena valley. We know of records from the following departments: Bolívar, Santander, Boyacá, Cundinamarca and Valle del Cauca (doubtful) (see González et al. 2013) (Fig. 15). Discussion: Despite the somewhat wide area of distribution, the nominotypical subspecies appears to be rare and was only known from old specimens until a male was collected in 2019. It is replaced on the western slopes of the Western Cordillera of Colombia and in western Ecuador by ssp. kruegeri (Niepelt, 1927) (González et al. 2013); in the past kruegeri was considered to be even rarer than hodeei (González et al. 2013), but in recent years more material has become available from western Ecuador. There is an error in González et al. (2013); in the examined material one specimen was listed as “[this is the type specimen of Castnia corrupta described by Schaus (1896) and now considered a synonym of V. hodeei hodeei (Lamas, 1995)]”. In fact, the specimen mentioned, misidentified as C. corrupta, is the type of Castnia amazona Knop, 1925. Material examined: 12 males and 6 females were examined for this study. As well as the types of hodeei, corrupta and amazona, we have examined from Colombia 1♂ Guamoco, F. Johnson; 1♀ Caucaval [Cauca valley], F. Johnson (AMNH); 2♂♂ Bogota, Fre. Appolinaire Marie, 1931 (MNHN); 2♂♂ Muzo, ex Joicey; 1♂ Nouvelle Grenade, reçu du frère Apolinar Maria en Mars 1923, 1♂ 1925, Ap. Maria, ex Joicey; 1♂ 1♀ ex Joicey, Ap. Maria; 1♀ Muzo, ex Hopp; (NHMUK); 1♀ Boyacá; 1♀ no data (USNM); 1♂ Quipama, Boyacá, April 2019 (DC)., 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 page 328, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5194.3.1, http://zenodo.org/record/7154442, {"references":["Oberthur, C. (1881) Lepidopteres d'Amerique. Etudes d'Entomologie, 6, xxv - xxvi + 27 - 38, pls. 4 - 6 + 10.","Gonzalez, J. M., Vinciguerra, R. & Rios, S. D. (2013) Amauta hodeei (Oberthur, 1881) and its subspecies (Lepidoptera: Castniidae), with comments on the life and times of Brother Apolinar Maria. Biodiversity Journal, 4 (2), 275 - 280.","Niepelt, W. (1927) Neue Falter von Columbien. Internationale entomologische Zeitschrift, 21 (28), 239 - 241.","Schaus, W. (1896) New species of Heterocera from tropical America. Journal of the New York entomological Society, 4 (4), 147 - 154.","Lamas, G. (1995) A critical review of J. Y. Miller's checklist of the Neotropical Castniidae (Lepidoptera). Revista peruana de Entomologia, 37, 73 - 87.","Knop, T. (1925) Castnia amazona nov. spec. und Papilio androgeus (Cr.). nov. var. fassli. Entomologische Zeitschrift, 39 (11), 42 - 43."]}

Se registra la presencia de Corybantes veraguana (Westwood, 1877) y Athis clitarcha (Westwood, 1877) por vez primera en Nicaragua y se incluye información sobre nueva localidad de colecta para Prometheus zagraea salvina (Westwood) (Lepidoptera: Castniidae).

The larval stage of the screwworm (Telchin atymnius) inflicts damage on the pseudostem and corm, allowing other pests and pathogens to affect crops and decrease fruit yield and quality. The adults form of these insects are attracted to certain colors and types of food, and their capture reduces oviposition and damage from future larvae. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of capturing adult individuals on plantain farms through two experiments: a) using traps with different colors (blue, white, and transparent) and b) using two types of traps (the most efficient color trap of the prior experiment and an artisanal trap). A completely randomized experiment design was used. The insects were recorded through counting. Binomial negative, Poisson and zero-inflated variation models were used for data analysis. Furthermore, temperature and rainfall variables were included as statistical model parameters of the color trap experiment. The parameters were considered significant when P

The giant sugarcane borer, Telchin licus, has been reported as an economically important sugarcane pest in Colombia; however, its taxonomic status has been scarcely investigated and previous reports offer an ambiguous characterization of both the immature and adult stages. The objective of this work is to identify Telchin species affecting sugarcane and alternative hosts in different departments of the country by integrating molecular analysis and conventional morphology. To date, T. licus has been found in the departments of Caquetá, Casanare, and Meta, while T. atymnius has been found in Antioquia, Caldas, Nariño, and Valle del Cauca. Sugarcane, Musaceae, and Heliconiaceae have been found to be hosts to both species. Additionally, the species T. cacica has also been registered in the department of Nariño, affecting heliconias and plantains. Genetic variation within the species allowed differentiation at the molecular level of subspecies of T. licus and T. atymnius, confirming that the subspecies present in Colombia are T. licus magdalena, T. atymnius humboldti, and T. atymnius atymnius. The haplotype diversity of populations is closely related to their geographical distribution, indicating low gene flow between populations and possible speciation inside the country. Analysis of genetic variance showed significant differences among and within T. atymnius populations, which may suggest a high genetic structure along the regions where it is found and the possible presence of additional subspecies to those previously reported. To understand the geographical and environmental conditions that determine the pest's distribution in Colombia, this information needs to be complemented with ecological considerations of possible geographical isolation and association of alternative hosts.

Athis hechtiae (Dyar, 1910) (Figs. 1A���1B) Castnia hechtiae Dyar, 1910: 269. Material examined: PUEBLA: 1♂, Holotype, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, June 1909, on Hechtia, R. M��ller, Cat. No. 13038 (USNM); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, June ���10, R. M��ller Collector, Castnia hechtiae, USNM ENT 00475765, Slide by Sime��o leg ♂ USNM 96288, Genitalia slide by Sime��o S.M., USNM 96260 (USNM); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, June ���10, R. M��ller Collector, (USNM); 1♀, Tehuac��n Mex[ico], R. M��ller Collector, Castnia hechtiae, ♀, Tehuac��n, June 10, Genitalia slide by Sime��o S.M. USNM 96266, USNM ENT 00475704 (USNM); 1♂, Castnia hechtiae, N�� 9387, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, julio, coll. R. M��ller (MHNCM); 1♀, Castnia hechtiae, N�� 2102, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, julio, coll. R. M��ller (MHNCM); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, VI-1910, 905 Cornell U. lot 828, sub. 8 (CUIC); 1♂, Tehuac��n, 6 mi [les]. SW Puebla, Mexico, 9-VII-1973, Coll. J.C. Schaffner et al., Orthia hectiae [sic] Dyar, ♂, det. Jacqueline Y. Miller, 1982 (TAMU); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 2- VI-2010, Coll. B. L��pez G. (BLG); 3♂♂, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, VI-2010, Coll. B. L��pez G. (BLG); 1♂, Mexico, Tehuac��n, 1913���443, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, Tehuac��n, BMNH (E) 1403371 (NHMUK); 1♂, Tehuac��n (Mex.), Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus. 1934���120, Castnia hechtiae, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, BMNH (E)1403372 (NHMUK); 1♂, Mexico, Tehuac��n, 1913���443, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, Tehuac��n, BMNH (E) 1403373 (NHMUK); 1♂, Mexico, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, Mexico, Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus. 1934���120, Ex Coll. Herbert Druce, 1913, BMNH(E) 1403374 (NHMUK); 1♂, Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus. 1934���120, 62. 24. Mexico, Pres. By Prof. M. Draudt, BMNH(E) 1403375 (NHMUK); 1♂, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, Mexico, BMNH(E) 1403378 (NHMUK); 1♂, Castnia hechtiae Dyar, Tehuac��n (Mexico), 142, BMNH(E) 1403379 (NHMUK); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, june 1910, Castnia hechtiae, Tehuac��n, BMNH (E) 1403380 (NHMUK); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, june 1910, Castnia hechtiae, Tehuac��n, BMNH (E) 1403381 (NHMUK); 1♂, C. hechtiae, 411, BMNH(E) 1403382 (NHMUK); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, june 1910, Castnia hechtiae, BMNH (E) 1403383 (NHMUK); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Mexico, june 1910, Castnia hechtiae, BMNH (E) 1403384 (NHMUK); 1♂, Mexique, 1913, ��change Le Moult, Mus��um de Paris, 60. 25. Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus. 1934���120, 59, BMNH(E) 1403376 (NHMUK); 1♀, Mexique, 1913, ��change Le Moult, Mus��um de Paris, hechtiae, 58, c.21 (MNHN); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, June 2015, Coll.? (RW); 2♂♂, Desert shrub forest, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 1800m, 15/Jul/2016, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 2♂♂, Desert shrub forest, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 1800m, 1/Aug/2016, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 4/Jun/2008, Leg. P. Rodriguez (RW); 1♀, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 22/Jun/2015, (RW); 1♀, Desert shrub forest, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 1800m, 7/Jun/2012, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♀, Desert shrub forest, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 1800m, 12/Jul/2016, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♀, Desert shrub forest, Tehuac��n, Puebla, Mexico, 1800m, 20/Jul/2016, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 26.IV.[20]10, Mexique (DC); 1♂, C. hechtiae, Tehuac��n, Puebla, MEX.[ico], 29-5-2013 (DC);); 1♂, Puebla, Mexico, 6-2016 (DC); 1♀, Mexique, Puebla, Tehuac��n, 1000m, VI/[20]15. (DC); 1♀, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 26 Junio 2016, 1,800 m, dry desert ��� forest (DC); 1♂, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 05 Julio 2011, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 2♂♂, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 21 Junio 2016, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 2♂♂, La Lobera, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 04 Julio 2015, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 3♂♂, La Lobera, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 19 Julio 2016, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 2♂♂, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 23 Junio 2014, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 1♀, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 17 Julio 2016, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 1♀, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 25 Junio 2016, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 1♀, San Diego Chalma, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 19 Junio 2017, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); 2♀♀, La Lobera, Tehuac��n, Puebla, 09 Junio 2015, Coll. J.J. Garc��a D. (JJGD); GUERRERO: 1♀, C. hechtiae ♀, 477, Mexico, Guerrero, 20.31, Joicey Bequest. Brit. Mus. 1934���120, BMNH(E) 1403377 (NHMUK) [there is no doubt that this specimen is A. hechtiae, however, we believe that the locality data is incorrect]; OAXACA: 1♂, Oaxaca, Mexico, 1/Feb/1979, Col.?, (RW) [The date for this specimen does not coincide with typical collecting dates for the species, therefore we doubt its validity.]; 1♀, 2.1 mi. Totolap��n, Oaxaca, Mexico, 7-VIII-1980, Coll. Shaffner & Friedlander (TAMU) [This locality is outside the Tehuac��n-Cuicatl��n Valley; the specimen was possibly a vagrant]; VERACRUZ: 1♂, Presidio, Veracruz, VI-[19]42, T. Escalante (MGCL) [The locality of this specimen is very doubtful. The host plant of A. hechtiae is not present in this ecosystem, which is completely different from that of the Tehuac��n-Cuicatl��n Valley]., Published as part of Gonz��lez, Jorge M., L��pez, Bernardo, D��az, Jos�� De Jes��s Garc��a, Simon, Sabrina, Sarto, V��ctor & Worthy, Robert, 2021, Reinstatement of Athis miastagma (Dyar, 1925) (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) as a valid species inhabiting the Pacific slope of Central Mexico, pp. 300-322 in Zootaxa 5061 (2) on page 303, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5061.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/5649512, {"references":["Dyar, H. G. (1910) Descriptions of some new species and genera of Lepidoptera from Mexico. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 38 (1742), 229 - 273. https: // doi. org / 10.5479 / si. 00963801.38 - 1742.229"]}

Athis miastagma (Dyar, 1925), stat. rest. (Figs. 1C���1D) Castnia miastagma Dyar, 1925: 19. Material Examined: COLIMA: 1♂, Tropical deciduous forest, La Salada, Colima, Mexico, 300m, 15/Jun/2015, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tropical deciduous forest, La Salada, Colima, Mexico, 300m, July 2016, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tropical deciduous forest, La Salada, Colima, Mexico, 300m, 20/Jun/2015, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♀, Tropical deciduous forest, La Salada, Colima, Mexico, 300m, 12/Jun/2015, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♀, Tropical deciduous forest, La Salada, Colima, Mexico, 300m, 20/Jun/2015, Leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, La Salada, Colima, 29 Junio 2015, Leg. B. L��pez (JJGD); 1♀, La Salada, Colima, 10 Julio 2015, Leg. B. L��pez (JJGD); GUERRERO: 1♂, Type, Guerrero, Mexico, May, R. M��ller, Cat. No. 27905, (mentioned in Dyar 1925 as a female); 1♂, CNIABM, Castnia hectiae [sic], No. 3523, pa��s Mexico, miastagma, Guerrero, 3523, Coll. R. M��ller (MHNCM); 1♂, Acahuizotla, Gro [Guerrero], VIII-[19]57, T. Escalante (MGCL); 1♂, Guerrero, Mexico, 4-2014 (DC) [this specimen is phenotypically similar to the Jalisco-Colima population, so the collecting data might be incorrect]; JALISCO: 1♂, Tolim��n, Jalisco, Mexico, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco. 1���9 julio 2013, 800 mts, Coll. B. L��pez G. (BLG); 3♂♂, Jalisco, Mexico, 2014, Coll. B. L��pez G. (BLG); 2♂♂, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico, 2014, Coll. B. L��pez God��nez (BLG); 1♂, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico, 800m, 8/Jul/2014, leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico, June 2013, leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico, 820m, Jul/2013, leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♀, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, Mexico, 800m, 15/Jul/2009, leg. B. L��pez (RW); 1♂, Mexique, Tuxcacuesco, 820m, Jalisco VII/2013 (DC); 2♂♂, Tuxcacuesco, Jalisco, 06 Julio 2017, Leg. B. L��pez (JJGD); MICHOAC��N: 1♀, Putja, Michoac��n, XII-[19]49, T. Escalante (MGCL) [after gathering and requesting information from many resources and collectors, we have been unable to identify this locality, therefore we consider it doubtful]; MORELOS: 1♂, Huitzilac, La Pera, 10/May/1967, col. R. G. de la Maza E. (CDM); 1♀, Tlaltizap��n, Tlaltizap��n, col. A. D��az F. (IBUNAM); 1♀, Tlaltizap��n, Temilpa, col. A. D��az F. (IBUNAM). Diagnosis of adults (phenotypes). The forewing of A. hechtiae is gray, with the ground color darker basally (Figs. 1A���1B). A creamy-white band goes from the base of the forewing, over CU to the bifurcation of CU1���CU2, filling the beginning of the interspace of CU1���CU2, running laterally and obliquely toward C in the sub-apical area of the wing. Before reaching C, the band ends in the interspace R5-M1. As an extension of the creamy-white band, an elongated, small, creamy-white spot is sometimes present in the interspace between R4���R 5 in the apical region. Hindwing orange, almost brick-red in mid cell and along the anal angle (tornus); a strongly bent dark to almost black band at end of discal cell, a submarginal row of pear-shaped spots and the margin narrowly black, the black running inward along the veins. Females are larger and usually paler than males, with orange tones more noticeable in the forewings dorsally (Fig. 1B). The female abdomen is orange and large whereas that of the male is gray and shorter. Wing expanse: Males: 51���67mm, Females: 72���85mm. Forewing length: Males: 28���38mm, Females: 41���51mm. In the case of A. miastagma, the forewing ground color is gray (as in A. hechtiae) but darker, diluting into lighter brown sub-marginally towards the anal angle (Figs. 1C���1D). As in hechtiae, a creamy-white band goes from the base of the forewing, over CU to the bifurcation of CU1���CU2, filling the beginning of the interspace of CU1���CU2, to run laterally and obliquely toward C in the sub-apical area of the wing. However, in all specimens we have examined, an extension of the oblique section of the band runs backward toward the dorsum (anal margin) without touching it (Figs. 1C���1D). A largish creamy-white cuneiform spot is placed in interspace R4���R5 (Figs. 1C���1D). A dark, almost black, oval dot can be noticed outside the bifurcation of the creamy white band in the forewings. This dot is not found in hechtiae. Hindwing orange with a large dark brown almost black spot with an orange center in the discal cell. The black areas of the hindwings are very diffused. They also have a submarginal row of small slightly elongated orange spots. The females differ from the males in the same way as hechtiae. Wing expanse: Males: 75���80mm, Females: 80���100mm; Fore wing length: Males: 40���44mm, Females: 48���58mm. Specimens of hechtiae are usually smaller than those of miastagma, although both taxa share similar wing shapes. The overall coloration tends to be darker in miastagma than in hechtiae. The creamy-white spot in the space between R4���R 5 in the apical region is always present and highly noticeable in miastagma, but it is not always present or is much smaller in hechtiae. The creamy-white branch that runs towards the tornus opposite the oblique band that runs towards C, is always present in miastagma but never in hechtiae. The area surrounded by this band and the one coming from the base of the wing to the discal cell is dark brown, almost black, in miastagma. This region, even though it is slightly darker than the rest of the forewing in hechtiae, is never as dark as in miastagma. Hindwings in hechtiae are mostly orange with the presence of an extradiscal band of orange spots that are easily seen, while those in miastagma are very dark and both postmedian and extradiscal bands made of dark spots are present. Male genitalia (Fig. 2). The male genitalia of both taxa are close (especially the aedeagus), but slight differences can be easily identified as follows. Uncus simple, fused into a blunt apex, which is almost abruptly curved in hechtiae (Figs. 2A���2C) but gradually curved in miastagma (Figs. 2D���2F). Gnathos is moderately sclerotized in both species, fused anteriad, and highly excavate posteriad, especially in miastagma. Subscaphium lightly sclerotized anteriad but almost membranous posteriad in both taxa. Cucullus and valvae are short and almost quadrate in hechtiae but long and almost rounded in miastagma. Sacculus weakly developed in both taxa; saccus short, blunt, recurved ventrad in hechtiae, wider and not as recurved ventrad in miastagma. Aedeagus curved, twice the length of the coecum, moderately sclerotized, and recurved anteroventrally in both taxa (Figs. 2A���2F). Species behavior. Athis hechtiae flies from late May to early August, from around 10:30���11:00h to 14:00��� 15:00h on sunny days, with temperatures varying from 22 to 35��C. They fly later, around 12:00h, on cloudy days. They may also fly on cold days or under a light drizzle, but never on rainy days. When temperatures become warmer around midday (28���35��C at 12:00���12:30h) they become more active and fly faster, visiting plants. Males are most active from 12:30 to 14:00h, and females generally fly about an hour later. They tend to fly through open spaces where vegetation is low and Hechtia plants are abundant. Males tend to fly fast, in an ���up and down��� movement, reaching heights up to 1.5���2.5m above the ground and vegetation. Females have a similar flight pattern, but they are slower than males. All individuals will perch on twigs or leaves of bromeliads or Agave plants once the temperature cools down or the day becomes cloudy. They typically perch with their forewings almost covering the hindwings, in a stegopterous position like many Castniidae (Miller 1986; R��os & Gonz��lez 2011; Vinciguerra et al. 2011; Gonz��lez et al. 2019). Males of A. hechtiae are territorial and easily disturbed by other males or potential predators. Males are frequently seen chasing other males and can then fly as high as 15���20m above the ground. Athis miastagma differs behaviorally from A. hechtiae. Males begin to fly around 11 am on sunny days (one of the authors, BLG, has observed them flying on cloudy days only once), and activity ceases at 3 pm. Like most known Mexican castniids, they are territorial and fly at a height of 2���4 m, however, they often fly over stone walls up to 20m high, since their host plant is found throughout the area. They usually perch on dried leaves of bromeliads (rarely on green leaves) or some other plant. Compared to other Mexican castniids, the males of A. miastagma are not very active and remain perched most of the time (up to 1 hour); only if another male or female passes by does the perched male become active and fly. They only fly in sunny areas. As in A. hechtiae, the females of A. miastagma fly later, between 1:30 pm and 3 pm. Females are rarely seen, mostly flying slowly among the bromeliads, possibly looking for suitable ones on which to lay their eggs. They are slow and ���heavy��� fliers. They attract a lot of attention from the males, nearly always bringing a group of 3 or 4 males chasing them. Interestingly, when the males chase a female, they don���t fight, they just chase her. Like the males, females are very local and do not usually fly away from their bromeliad ���colonies���, mostly flying around those found near rock walls of up to 20m. Genetic analyses. Genetic distances ranged overall from 0.0000% to 0.1573% (K2P) and 0.1417% (p) (Tables 2). The average genetic distances of A. hechtiae to A. miastagma were 0.040 8 (K2P, Table 2.1) and 0.039 6 (p, Table 2.2) while intraspecific distances of A. hechtiae was 0.000 0 and intraspecific distances of A. miastagma was 0.000 5 (Fig. 3). ......continued on the next page TABLE 2.1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 2.1. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 2.2. (Continued) ......continued on the next page TABLE 2.2. (Continued) The alignment of the COI barcode region with 18 species contained 658 bp including 156 distinct patterns, 107 parsimony-informative, 64 singleton sites, and 486 constant sites. We further manually inspected the COI alignment for diagnostic characters, so-called character-based DNA barcodes (DeSalle et al. 2005; Rach et al. 2008). We only analysed pure diagnostic characters for A. hechtiae and A. miastagma. Pure diagnostic characters consisted of all the nucleotide positions of individuals from A. hechtiae that differed from those in all individuals of A. miastagma. Table 3 lists a total of 25 identified character-based DNA barcodes for A. hechtiae and A. miastagma. The Maximum Likelihood (ML) analyses as implemented in IQ-TREE and using GTR+F+G4 as the best-fit model according to Bayesian information criterion (BIC) showed a clear separation of A. hechtiae (98% bootstrap support) and A. miastagma (97% bootstrap support) (Fig. 4)., Published as part of Gonz��lez, Jorge M., L��pez, Bernardo, D��az, Jos�� De Jes��s Garc��a, Simon, Sabrina, Sarto, V��ctor & Worthy, Robert, 2021, Reinstatement of Athis miastagma (Dyar, 1925) (Lepidoptera: Castniidae) as a valid species inhabiting the Pacific slope of Central Mexico, pp. 300-322 in Zootaxa 5061 (2) on pages 304-314, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5061.2.4, http://zenodo.org/record/5649512, {"references":["Dyar, H. G. (1925) Some new American moths (Lepidoptera). Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 13 (1 / 3), 1 - 19.","Miller, J. Y. (1986) The taxonomy, phylogeny, and zoogeography of the Neotropical moth subfamily Castniinae (Lepidoptera, Castnoidea: Castiniidae). Ph. D. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 571 pp.","Vinciguerra, R., Lozano Rodriguez, P., Hernandez-Baz, F. & Gonzalez, J. M. (2011) Observations on Athis thysanete (Dyar, 1912) (Lepidopera, Castniidae) from Mexico and comparative notes to other species in the family. Biodiversity Journal, 2 (4), 189 - 194.","Kimura, M. (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 16 (2), 111 - 120.","Kumar, S., Stecher, G., Li, M., Knyaz, C. & Tamura, K. (2018) MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 35, 1547 - 1549. [PMid: 29722887 PMCid: PMC 5967553] https: // doi. org / 10.1093 / molbev / msy 096","Stecher, G., Tamura, K. & Kumar, S. (2020) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) for macOS. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 37 (4), 1237 - 1239.","DeSalle, R., Egan, M. G. & Siddall, M. (2005) The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation, and DNA barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 360 (1462), 1905 - 1916. [PMid: 16214748; PMCid: PMC 1609226] https: // doi. org / 10.1098 / rstb. 2005.1722","Rach, J., DeSalle, R., Sarkar, I. N., Schierwater, B. & Hadrys, H. (2008) Character-based DNA barcoding allows discrimination of genera, species, and populations in Odonata. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 275, 237 - 247. [PMid: 17999953 PMCid: PMC 2212734] https: // doi. org / 10.1098 / rspb. 2007.1290"]}

Mexico is the Mesoamerican country with the highest number of Castniidae species (12), most of which are found in the dry regions of the country. Among these, Athis hechtiae (Dyar, 1910) was considered a species widely distributed in Mexico after Athis miastagma (Dyar, 1925) was synonymized with A. hechtiae over two decades ago. A genetic and morphological study, as well as details of the natural history of various populations of these two taxa have led us to restore Athis miastagma as a valid species (stat. rest.), increasing the number of castniids recorded in Mexico to 13.

Bacteria of the genus Bacillus can colonize endophytically and benefit several crops including the control of some pest orders. In view of the benefits provided by these microorganisms and in order to find out an efficient biotechnological control for the giant borer, our interest in studying the microorganisms in symbiosis with sugarcane and the giant borer has arisen, since there is no efficient chemical or biological control method for this pest. Therefore, endophytic Bacillus strains were isolated from three sugarcane niches (apoplast fluid, central internode cylinder and roots) and also from the giant borer larvae living inside sugarcane varieties grown in the Northeast region of Brazil. The taxonomical characterization (16S rRNA) of 157 Gram-positive isolates showed that 138 strains belonged to the Bacillus genus. The most representative species were phylogenetically closely related to B. megaterium (11.5%) followed by B. safensis (10.8%), B. cereus (8.9%), B. oleronius (8.9%), B. amyloliquefaciens (7.0%), and B. pacificus (6.4%). BOX-PCR analyses showed very distinct band pattern profiles suggesting a great diversity of Bacillus species within the sugarcane niches and the digestive tract, while the B. cereus group remained very closely clustered in the dendrogram. According to XRE biomarker analysis, eleven strains (FORCN005, 007, 008, 011, 012, 014, 067, 076, 092, 093, and 135) correspond to B. thuringiensis species. Additional studies using conserved genes (glp, gmk, pta, and tpi) indicated that most of these strains were phylogenetically closely related to B. thuringiensis and may be considered different subspecies. In conclusion, this study suggests that the culturable Bacillus species are greatly diversified within the plant niches and showed Bacillus species in the digestive tract of the giant borer for the first time. These results open new perspectives to understand the role and functions played by these microorganisms in symbiosis with this pest and also the possibility of developing an efficient biological control method for the giant borer using strains identified as the B. thuringiensis species.

Further results of our research into the Giant Butterfly-Moths (Castniidae) of the Museum of Natural History (University of Wrocław) are presented. Castniids of the Niepelt collection had previously been reviewed. However, while curating other sections of the Lepidoptera collection, we discovered 18 misplaced specimens belonging to nine taxa of Castniidae, several of them bearing typical labels by Niepelt. Among them, two are of particular interest, insofar as they are associated with the world-class botanists August Weberbauer (1871–1948) and Karl Adolf Georg Lauterbach (1864–1937).