Search

A taxonomic list of valid genera in the subfamily Hesperiinae from the Old World assigned to tribes is provided. This list is based on phylogenetic analysis of genomic sequence data complemented by morphological considerations. As a result, there are no incertae sedis non-fossil genera in the family Hesperiidae.

Eprius obrepta (Kivirikko, 1936), reinstated status Miltomiges obrepta Kivirikko, 1936 (type locality in Argentina) (Fig. 6 olive) is genetically differentiated from Eprius veleda (Godman, 1901) (type locality in Mexico (Ver / Tab), Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama) (Fig. 6 green), within which it has been placed as a subspecies. COI barcodes of the two taxa differ by 2.1% (14 bp). Therefore, we reinstate it as a species Eprius obrepta (Kivirikko, 1936), stat. rest., leaving E. veleda monotypic., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on pages 103-104, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266

Corra xanthus (O. Mielke, 1989), new combination Vidius xanthus Mielke, 1989 (type locality in Brazil: S„o Paulo) (Fig. 7 purple) is not monophyletic with Vidius Evans, 1955 (type species Narga vidius Mabille, 1891) (Fig. 7 blue), where it is currently placed, and instead is sister to Hesperia coryna Hewitson, 1866, type species of Corra Grishin, 2019 (Fig. 7 cyan). Their COI barcodes are 7% (46 bp) different, which is typical for congeners. Therefore, we propose to transfer V. xanthus to Corra, forming Corra xanthus (O. Mielke, 1989), comb. nov. As a result, Corra is no longer monotypic and we find another example of closely related species with drastically different (for Hesperiidae) color patterns. Nevertheless, the three brown rays on the ventral hindwing of C. coryna can be traced to three more diffuse elements of C. xanthus hindwing pattern.

Rectava cascatona (O. Mielke, 1992), new combination Proposed in the genus Papias Godman, 1900 (type species Pamphila integra Mabille, 1891), P. cascatona O. Mielke, 1992 (type locality in Brazil: Minas Gerais) is not monophyletic with it, and its holotype (Fig. 7 magenta) is placed within Rectava Grishin, 2022 (type species Megistias ignarus E. Bell, 1932) (Fig. 7 red) in the nuclear genome tree. The COI barcodes of P. cascatona and R. ignarus holotypes differ by 5.3% (35 bp), a distance typical for close congeners. Therefore, we propose Rectava cascatona (O. Mielke, 1992), comb. nov.

Cymaenes catarinae (O. Mielke, 1989) and Cymaenes incomptus (Hayward, 1934), new combinations Sequencing of the holotype and allotype of Vidius catarinae O. Mielke, 1989 (type locality in Brazil: Santa Catarina) and a specimen of Nastra incomptus Hayward, 1934 (type locality Argentina: Punta Lara) (Fig. 7 olive), reveals that they are sisters placed deep within Cymaenes Scudder, 1872 (type species Cobalus tripunctus Herrich-Schäffer, 1865) (Fig. 7 blue). Their harpe has a characteristic for Cymaenes shape, protruding dorsocaudad from valva and terminally expanding towards serrated margin. Therefore, we propose Cymaenes catarinae (O. Mielke, 1989), comb. nov. and Cymaenes incomptus (Hayward, 1934), comb. nov.

Lurida zama (Hayward, 1939), new combination Lerodea zama Hayward, 1939 (type locality in Argentina: Tucuman) (Fig. 7 orange) is not monophyletic with Cymaenes Scudder, 1872 (type species Cobalus tripunctus Herrich-Schäffer, 1865) (Fig. 7 green), where it is currently placed, and instead is sister to Lurida lurida (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), type species Lurida Grishin, 2019 (Fig. 7 lime). The COI barcode difference between L. zama and L. lurida is 6.5% (43 bp), suggesting close, and hence congeneric, relationships. Therefore, we propose Lurida zama (Hayward, 1939), comb. nov.

Cymaenes macintyrei Hayward, 1939, reinstated status Placed by Evans (1955) as a subspecies of Cymaenes tripunctata (Latreille, [1824]) (type locality in Brazil), Lerodea macintyrei Hayward, 1939 (type locality Ecuador: Balzapamba) (Fig. 7 lilac) was kept at this status, until using genomic sequencing we found that it is sister to Cymaenes chapa O. Mielke, 1968 (type locality in Brazil: Distrito Federal) and is more distant from C. tripunctata (Fig. 7). Moreover, the COI barcodes of L. macintyrei and C. tripunctata differ by 6.1% (40 bp). Therefore, we reinstate a species-level status for Cymaenes macintyrei Hayward, 1939, stat. rest., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Vidius felus O. Mielke, 1968 and Cobalopsis dorpa de Jong, 1983 are junior subjective synonyms of Vidius dagon (Evans, 1955) and Vidius catocala (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), respectively Genomic sequencing of the holotypes of Vidius felus O. Mielke, 1968 (type locality in Brazil: Minas Gerais) and Cobalopsis dorpa de Jong, 1983 (type locality in Suriname) and a syntype of Cobalus catocala Herrich-Schäffer, 1869 (type locality not specified) and three specimens from Brazil that we identified as Vidius dagon (Evans, 1955), comb. nov. (type locality Paraguay: Sapucay) (Fig. 7 blue), reveals two pairs of synonyms. COI barcodes of V. dagon, comb. nov. and V. felus and of V. catocala, comb. nov. and C. dorpa are 100% identical among the four specimens we sequenced in each group, but those between groups, i.e., of V. dagon, comb. nov. and V. catocala, comb. nov. differ by 6.2% (41 bp). Therefore, we propose that Vidius felus O. Mielke, 1968, syn. nov. is a junior subjective synonym of Vidius dagon (Evans, 1955) and Cobalopsis dorpa de Jong, 1983, syn. nov. is a junior subjective synonym of Vidius catocala (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869). To stabilize nomenclature and the synonymy proposed here, and to objectively define V. catocala with a single specimen, we designate its syntype that we sequenced, in the MFNB collection, bearing the following seven rectangular labels, 1 st purple, others white: [Origin.], [catocala], [Coll. H.—Sch], [Coll. | Staudinger], [Catocala | H-Sch.], [{QR code} http://coll.mfn-berlin.de/u/ | 44a010], and [DNA sample ID: | NVG-15036G03 | c/o Nick V. Grishin] as the lectotype of Cobalus catocala Herrich-Schäffer, 1869. This specimen is in poor condition, lacking abdomen and antennae, wings and the head appear to be glued to the thorax, all wings have tear and, except the right forewing, are missing some pieces. However, whole genome shotgun dataset obtained from the lectotype is of a good quality for a specimen of this age and unambiguously defines this name, e.g., its COI barcode is 100% identical to the holotype of C. dorpa suggesting no errors in either sequence., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["de Jong, R. (1983) Annotated list of the Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) of Surinam, with descriptions of new taxa. Tijdschrift voor entomologie, 126, 233 - 268.","Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. (1869) Prodromus systematis lepidopterorum. Versuch einer systematischen Anordnung der Schmetterlinge. Correspondenz-Blatt des zoologisch-mineralogischen Vereines in Regensburg, 23, 184 - 204."]}

Mucia rusta (Evans, 1955), new combination Psoralis rusta Evans, 1955 (Fig. 6 dark blue) is not monophyletic with Psoralis Mabille, 1904 (type species Psoralis sabaeus Mabille, 1904, which is a junior subjective synonym of Pamphila idee Weeks, 1901) and instead is sister to Mucia zygia (Pl̂tz, 1886), which is a senior subjective synonym of Mucia thyia Godman, 1900, the type species of Mucia Godman, 1900 (Fig. 6 blue). Male genitalia show a number of similarities, particularly in the shape of relatively narrow and upturned harpe. Therefore, we propose Mucia rusta (Evans, 1955), comb. nov.

Oarisma (Oarisma) castanea (O. Mielke, 1969), comb. nov. originates in deep radiation of Oarisma Scudder, 1872 Phylogenetic analysis of the holotype and allotype of Copaeodes castanea O. Mielke, 1969 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná), presently placed in the subgenus Copaeodes Speyer, 1877 of Oarisma Scudder, 1872 (type species Hesperia powesheik [sic!] Parker, 1870), reveals that while its monophyly with Oarisma is strongly supported in all three trees (nuclear, Z chromosome and mitochondrial), its position with the genus is not well defined (Fig. 9 red). In the tree constructed from protein-coding regions in the Z chromosome (diverges readily in speciation and more resistant to gene exchange between species), O. castanea. is sister to other Oarisma with moderate support: 70% of position partitions yield this topology (Fig. 9b). However, in the trees constructed from protein coding regions in the rest of the nuclear genome (excluding the Z chromosome) (Fig. 9a) and in mitochondrial genome (Fig. 9c), it is sister to Oarisma sensu stricto, weakly supported (38% of partitions) in nuclear genome and strongly supported (99% of partitions) in mitogenome. Because the number of positions included in the analysis is very large, poor statistical support is not a consequence of insufficient data. As usual with genomic data, poor support indicates rapid radiation at some point in the past and suggests incomplete lineage sorting and/or gene exchange near the origins of these species. While evolutionary processes are being investigated, we propose to classify this species according to the tree that received strongest support, i.e., mitogenome-based (99%, highlighted yellow in Fig 9c), and tentatively place O. castanea in the subgenus Oarisma. Furthermore, the trees reveal that the last common ancestor of Oarisma rapidly diverged into 4 lineages: subgenus Oarisma, O. castanea, O. boeta (Hewitson, 1870), and the rest of the genus. Topologies of the three trees are inconsistent in placing the root among these four lineages (Fig. 9). This rapid radiation of Oarisma into four lineages with unresolved topology supports the treatment of these species as congeneric, because partitions into clades within this genus are not well defined., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 110, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266

Duroca caraca (O. Mielke, 1992), new combination Sequencing of the holotype and allotype of Lerema caraca O. Mielke, 1992 (type locality in Brazil: Minas Gerais) (Fig. 8 aquamarine) reveals its close relationship with Hesperia duroca Pl ̂tz, 1882 (type locality in Brazil: Rio de Janeiro), the type species of Duroca Grishin, 2019 (Fig. 8 violet). The COI barcodes of the type specimens of these species reveal 5.4% (36 bp) difference, which is small enough even for closely related congeners, and therefore we propose Duroca caraca (O. Mielke, 1992), comb. nov.

Panoquina confusa O. Mielke, 1968 confirmed as a junior subjective synonym of Panoquina trix Evans, 1955 Panoquina confusa O. Mielke, 1968 (type locality in Brazil: Minas Gerais) has been placed as a junior subjective synonym of Panoquina trix Evans, 1955 (type locality in Brazil: Mato Grosso) by Mielke (2004). Genomic sequencing of the holotype of P. confusa (Fig. 10 magena) reveals that in both nuclear and mitochondrial genome trees it is located among specimens of P. trix (Fig. 10 cyan) including topotypes, thus confirming this synonymy., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 112, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Mielke, O. H. H. (2004) Hesperioidea. In: Lamas, G. (Ed.), Checklist: Part 4 A. Hesperioidea - Papilionoidea. Association for Tropical Lepidoptera, Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, pp. i - xxxvi + 1 - 439."]}

Vehilius spitzi (O. Mielke, 1967), Vehilius tanta (Evans, 1955), Vehilius campestris (O. Mielke, 1980), and Vehilius tinta (Evans, 1955), new combinations Vidius spitzi O. Mielke, 1967 and Vidius tinta Evans, 1955 (type locality for the two in Brazil: Goiás), Nastra tanta Evans, 1955 (type locality in Brazil: Mato Grosso), and Cymaenes campestris O. Mielke, 1980 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná) (Fig. 7 pink) originate within the species of Vehilius Godman, 1900 (type species Cobalus illudens Mabille, 1891, currently a subspecies of Pamphila stictomenes Butler, 1877) (Fig. 7 gray) as evidenced by the nuclear genome tree. Typical COI barcode differences among these species are around 3%–5%: e.g., V. spitzi differs from N. tanta by 3% (20 bp) and C. campestris differs from V. tinta by 4.7% (31 bp), with the largest difference being between V. stictomenes illudens and C. campestris: 8.1% (53 bp). Therefore, we place all these species in the same genus as Vehilius spitzi (O. Mielke, 1967), comb. nov., Vehilius tanta (Evans, 1955), comb. nov., Vehilius campestris (O. Mielke, 1980), comb. nov., and Vehilius tinta (Evans, 1955), comb. nov.

Oeonus Godman, 1900, new status, is a subgenus of Oxynthes Godman, 1900 Oeonus Godman, 1900 -XI (type species Oeonus pyste Godman, 1900) clusters closely with Oxynthes Godman, 1900 -X (type species Goniloba corusca Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) in the genomic tree (Fig. 4 blue). COI barcode difference between the type species of these two genera is 9.6% (63 bp). Genetic differentiation between Oeonus and Oxynthes is approximately the same as between Orthos orthos and Orthos minka that were formerly considered conspecific (Fig. 4 magenta and green). Both Oeonus and Oxynthes include a small number of species and are not separated from each other by a prominent break (i.e, longer internal branches) comparable to that separating them both from Testia Grishin, 2019. Therefore, we propose to treat these species as congeneric and place Oeonus, stat. nov. as a subgenus of Oxynthes., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. (1869) Prodromus systematis lepidopterorum. Versuch einer systematischen Anordnung der Schmetterlinge. Correspondenz-Blatt des zoologisch-mineralogischen Vereines in Regensburg, 23, 184 - 204."]}

Eprius planus (Weeks, 1901) and Eprius penna (Evans, 1955), new combinations Pamphila planus Weeks, 1901 (type locality in Bolivia) (Fig. 6 orange), currently in Mnasicles Godman, 1901 (type species Mnasicles geta Godman, 1901), is not monophyletic with it and instead originates near Eprius Godman, 1901 (type species Epeus veleda Godman, 1901) (Fig. 6 green). COI barcodes of E. veleda and P. planus are 8.5% (56 bp) different, which is within the range known for congeners. Additionally, Styrioides [sic] penna Evans, 1955 is morphologically similar to P. planus. All these species possess a narrow brand segment along forewing cubitus in cell CuA 1 -CuA 2, short undivided and rounded uncus, bottle-shaped taken together with tegumen in dorsal view, and an unusual aedeagus end elaborate with spikes. For these reasons, we propose Eprius planus (Weeks, 1901), comb. nov. and Eprius penna (Evans, 1955), comb. nov. However, the structure of the 3 rd segment of palpi is quite different between E. veleda (thin and rather long) and E. planus with E. penna (stout and conical). Analysis of other relatives will shed more light on these similarities and differences., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Corra catargyra (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867), reinstated status and Corra conka (Evans, 1955), new status with Corra conka argentus (H. Freeman, 1969), new status, new combination, as its subspecies Genomic analysis of Hesperia catargyra C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867 (type locality Venezuela and Colombia) and Vettius coryna conka Evans, 1955 (type locality in Guatemala) (Fig. 7 dark cyan) reveals their prominent genetic differentiation from Hesperia coryna Hewitson, 1866 (type locality in Brazil: Amazonas), the type species of Corra Grishin, 2019 (Fig. 7 cyan). E.g., COI barcodes of V. c. conka and C. coryna differ by 5.5% (36 bp). Therefore, instead of keeping these taxa as subspecies of C. coryna, we propose to treat them as species: Corra catargyra (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1867), stat. rest. and Corra conka (Evans, 1955), stat. nov. Due to the limited genetic differentiation between Vettius argentus Freeman, 1969 (type locality in Mexico: Chiapas, holotype NVG-18025D09 sequenced) and C. conka, as reflected in their 100% identical COI barcodes, we propose Corra conka argentus (H. Freeman, 1969), stat. nov., comb. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 106, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Vidius dagon (Evans, 1955), Vidius catocala (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), Vidius cocalus (Hayward, 1939), and Vidius obscurior (Hayward, 1934), new combinations A number of species currently placed in the genus Cobalopsis Godman, 1900 (type species Pamphila edda Mabille, 1891, a junior subjective synonym of Hesperia autumna, 1882) (Fig. 7 dark blue) originate near or within Vidius Evans, 1955 (type species Narga vidius Mabille, 1891) (Fig. 7 blue). The COI barcode difference between Atrytonopsis obscurior Hayward, 1934 (type locality in Argentina: Entre Rios), taken as a representative of the clade that is sister to others, and therefore is most distant from Vidius, and a paralectotype of V. vidius (type locality in Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul) from Brazil: S„o Paulo (NVG-18043G 12 in MFNB) is 7.3% (48 bp). Therefore, we transfer them to this genus forming Vidius dagon (Evans, 1955), comb. nov., Vidius catocala (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), comb. nov., Vidius cocalus (Hayward, 1939), comb. nov., and Vidius obscurior (Hayward, 1934), comb. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. (1869) Prodromus systematis lepidopterorum. Versuch einer systematischen Anordnung der Schmetterlinge. Correspondenz-Blatt des zoologisch-mineralogischen Vereines in Regensburg, 23, 184 - 204."]}

Duroca lenta (Evans, 1955), reinstated status Genomic sequencing of primary type specimen of Hesperia duroca Pl ̂tz, 1882 (type locality in Brazil: Rio de Janeiro, NVG-15034C 12 in MFNB), the type species of Duroca Grishin, 2019 (Fig. 8 violet), and Lerema lenta Evans, 1955 (type locality in Brazil: S„o Paulo, molecular code NHMUK0247278362 in BMNH) (Fig. 8 brown), currently a subspecies of D. duroca, reveals 2.6% (17 bp) difference in their COI barcodes. Coupled with phenotypic differences described by Evans (1955), such as unmarked wings, smaller size, and more produced and pointed harpe in L. lenta, this genetic differentiation suggests species status for Duroca lenta (Evans, 1955), stat. rest. Furthermore, sequence comparison confirms that Lerema elgina Schaus, 1902 (type locality in Brazil: Rio de Janeiro) is a junior subjective synonym of Duroca duroca. Finally, to ensure correct identification of this species, a syntype in the USNM collection bearing the following five rectangular labels, 4 th red, others white: [Nova Friburgo, | Brazil], [Collection | W. Schaus], [Lerema | eglina | type Sch.], [Type | No. 6054 | U.S. N.M.], [USNMENT | {QR code} | 00913064] is herein designated as the lectotype of Lerema elgina Schaus, 1902., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 108, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Cabirus junta Evans, 1952 and Cabirus purda Evans, 1952, new status Treated as subspecies since their description, Cabirus procas junta Evans, 1952 (type locality in Peru, Junín, Chanchamayo) and Cabirus procas purda Evans, 1952 (type locality in Peru, Loreto, Pebas), both described based on female holotypes, form distinct prominent clusters in the genomic tree (Fig. 2). The three distinct clades of Cabirus Hübner, [1819] exhibit genetic diversification suggesting three species-level taxa: Fst/Gmin for pairs of these taxa are 0.48–0.64/ 0.006 –0.012, suggesting nearly complete genetic isolation as evidenced by almost undetectable gene exchange between them. COI barcodes of C. p. junta (OM88.069) and C. p. purda (OM81.092) differ by 2% (13 bp) and they differ from the barcode of Cabirus procas procas (Cramer, 1777) (OM39.553) by 1.5% (10 bp) and 1.4% (9 bp), respectively. Males of these taxa are very similar and difficult to be distinguished, although those of C. p. procas have a reduced forewing subapical yellow patch, with crenulated distal margin, and a very reduced extension of yellow below forewing discal cell (Fig. 2a), whereas the yellow patches are wider, with smooth margins in both C. p. junta (Fig. 2b) and C. p. purda (Fig. 2c). On the other hand, females of these taxa are different in their facies and are distinguished by the amount of dark overscaling along hindwing veins from missing (C. p. purda, Fig. 2d left) to heavily expressed (C. p. procas). For all these reasons, we propose species-level for these taxa: Cabirus junta Evans, 1952, stat. nov. and Cabirus purda Evans, 1952, stat. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 95, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1952) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part II. Pyrginae. Section I. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 178 pp., pls. 110 - 125."]}

Oarisma (Copaeodes) favor (Evans, 1955), new status Genomic sequencing of Copaeodes jean jean Evans, 1955 (type locality in Guyana) (Fig. 9 green) and Copaeodes jean favor Evans, 1955 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná) (Fig. 9 magenta), both currently in the genus Oarisma Scudder, 1872 (type species Hesperia powesheik Parker, 1870), reveals prominent genetic differentiation between them, e.g., their COI barcodes differ by 4.7% (31 bp). Combined with phenotypic differences mentioned by Evans (1955), like the presence of dark border on wings and the extent of whitening between veins on ventral hindwing, these differences suggest a species status for Oarisma (Copaeodes) favor (Evans, 1955), stat. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 110, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Panoquina eugeon (Godman & Salvin, 1896), reinstated status, Panoquina calna Evans, 1955 and Panoquina albistriga O. Mielke, 1980, new status, and Panoquina eugeon minima de Jong, 1983, new combination Genomic trees reveal that Panoquina panoquinoides (Skinner, 1891) (type locality in USA: Florida / Texas) is not monophyletic, and Panoquina errans (Skinner, 1892) (type locality in USA: California / Texas) originates within it (Fig. 10). We find that Panoquina panoquinoides calna Evans, 1955 (type locality in Peru) (Fig. 10 orange) is sister to P. errans (Fig. 10 olive, syntype sequenced) in both nuclear and mitochondrial genome trees, differing from it by 2.6% (17 bp) in COI barcodes and Panoquina panoquinoides albistriga O. Mielke, 1980 (type locality in Brazil: Rio Grande do Sul) (Fig. 10 green, holotype sequenced) is sister to Panoquina panoquinoides eugeon (Godman & Salvin, 1896) (type locality in Grenada) showing 0.9% (6 bp) in COI barcode distance (lower than expected from the nuclear genome divergence illustrated in Fig. 10). Due to prominent genetic differentiation between these taxa, we propose to treat them as species: Panoquina eugeon (Godman & Salvin, 1896), stat. rest., Panoquina calna Evans, 1955, stat. nov. and Panoquina albistriga O. Mielke, 1980, stat. nov. Sequencing Panoquina panoquinoides minima de Jong, 1983 (type locality in Surinam) (Fig. 10 maroon) demonstrates that it is sister to P. eugeon, stat. rest. (Fig. 10 purple) and clusters with it rather closely, especially in the mitogenome tree (COI barcode difference 0.76%, 5bp). Due to genetic and phenotypic similarities and proximity in locality we conservatively place it as a subspecies: P. eugeon minima de Jong, 1983, comb. nov. pending more detailed research., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 112, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","de Jong, R. (1983) Annotated list of the Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) of Surinam, with descriptions of new taxa. Tijdschrift voor entomologie, 126, 233 - 268."]}

Panca fiedleri (Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015), new combination Genomic sequencing of the holotype of Ginungagapus fiedleri Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná) (Fig. 6 maroon) reveals that it is not monophyletic with Ginungagapus Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015 (type species Euroto schmithi E. Bell, 1930) and instead is sister to Panca steinhauseri (Dolibaina & A. Warren, 2015) (type locality in Ecuador) within Panca Evans, 1955 (type species Lerodea subpunctuli Hayward, 1934) (Fig. 6 violet). In a morphological phylogeny, Ginungagapus and Artines Godman, 1901 (type species Thracides aepitus Geyer, 1832) were recovered as sisters (Carneiro et al. 2015). At that time, however, Artines trogon Evans, 1955 and Artines fosca Evans, 1955 were selected as representatives of Artines, two species currently in Panca (Medeiros et al. 2020) and Eutocus (combination proposed below), respectively. In this analysis G. fiedleri was the first linage to diverge within Ginungagapus, being sister of a clade with all remaining species in the genus. In fact, G. fiedleri shares several morphological similarities in male and female genitalia with species in Panca, suggesting close affinity, which is here corroborated by the genome. Therefore, we propose Panca fiedleri (Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015), comb. nov.

Oxynthes (Oxynthes) egma (Evans, 1955), comb. nov. Currently placed in Oeonus Godman, 1900 -XI (type species Oeonus pyste Godman, 1900), O. egma Evans, 1955 is most closely related to the type species of Oxynthes Godman, 1900 -X (Goniloba corusca Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) than that of Oeonus (Fig. 4 blue). Therefore, it does not belong to Oeonus and we propose Oxynthes egma (Evans, 1955), comb. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. (1869) Prodromus systematis lepidopterorum. Versuch einer systematischen Anordnung der Schmetterlinge. Correspondenz-Blatt des zoologisch-mineralogischen Vereines in Regensburg, 23, 184 - 204."]}

Bungalotis gagarini O. Mielke, 1967 is a new junior subjective synonym of Bungalotis corentinus (Plötz, 1882) A series of misidentifications that started from Mabille (1903), has led to long-standing confusions in Bungalotis E. Watson, 1893 (type species Papilio midas Cramer, 1775). Some of them were resolved by designating the holotype of Telegonus diophorus M̂schler, 1883 (type locality in Suriname) as the neotype of Telegonus corentinus Pl ̂tz, 1882 described from Surinamese specimen(s), rendering the former a junior objective synonym of the latter (Zhang et al. 2022). Genomic sequencing of the holotype of Bungalotis gagarini O. Mielke, 1967 (type locality in Brazil: Goiás) (Fig. 1a green, NVG-17879D07) places it in the clade of genetically similar specimens with the neotype / holotype of Bungalotis corentinus / T. diophorus (Fig. 1a purple, NVG-15031G10). Other specimens in the same clade were identified as B. corentinus / T. diophorus from French Guiana and as B. gagarini from Brazil: Rondônia (Fig. 1a red). COI barcodes between the two primary type specimens differ by 0.5% (3 bp), a difference of the same magnitude as that between the neotype of B. corentinus and a specimen NVG-17104D08 from French Guiana (0.76%, 5 bp), or between this French Guiana specimen and the holotype of B. gagarini (0.3%, 2 bp). These differences are likely to represent individual variation: the barcodes of the two specimens from Rondônia also differ by 2 base pairs. Genetic and phenotypic similarities between all these specimens suggest that they are conspecific. Even original descriptions of the two taxa are similar: both were compared to Bungalotis midas (Cramer, 1775) (type locality in Suriname) with the following differences: for B. corentinus (translated from German), “upper side [of all wings] almost without markings”, and for B. gagarini (translated from Portuguese), “an almost complete absence of spots on the upper surface of the wings”. Therefore, we propose that Bungalotis gagarini O. Mielke, 1967, syn. nov. is a new junior subjective synonym of Bungalotis corentinus (Pl̂tz, 1882)., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 94, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Mabille, P. (1903) Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. Fam. Hesperidae. Genera Insectorum, 17 a, 1 - 78.","Zhang, J., Cong, Q., Shen, J. & Grishin, N. V. (2022) Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Insecta Mundi, 0921, 1 - 135."]}

Rhomba mirnae (Siewert, Nakamura & O. Mielke, 2014), new combination Genomic sequencing of the holotype of Psoralis mirnae Siewert, Nakamura & O. Mielke, 2014 (type locality in Guatemala) (Fig. 6 purple), currently in Alychna Grishin, 2019 (type species Pamphila exclamationis Mabille, 1898), reveals that it is not monophyletic with either Psoralis Mabille, 1904 (type species Psoralis sabaeus Mabille, 1904, which is a junior subjective synonym of Pamphila idee Weeks, 1901) or Alychna, but instead groups closely with Rhomba gertschi (Bell, 1937), which is the type species of Rhomba Grishin, 2022 (Fig. 6 cyan). The COI barcode difference between A. mirnae and R. gertschi holotypes is 4.7% (31 bp) which is well within the range of close congeners. Their genitalia are largely similar in having widely separated short and stout uncus arms, nearly rectangular tegumen in dorsal view, broad valva and upturned harpe with nearly straight and serrated or slightly concave dorsal margin armed with a proximal and a distal tooth. Therefore, we propose Rhomba mirnae (Siewert, Nakamura & O. Mielke, 2014), comb. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 103, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266

Lattus minor (O. Mielke, 1967), new combination Genomic sequencing of the holotype of Eutocus minor O. Mielke, 1967 (type locality in Brazil: Distrito Federal) (Fig. 6 dark green) reveals that it is sister to Lattus arabupuana (Bell, 1932) (type locality in Brazil: Roraima), which is the type species of Lattus Grishin, 2022 (Fig. 6 gray). The COI barcodes between the two species differ by 6.4% (43 bp). Their genitalia are uniquely similar in long and thin gnathos arms and aedeagus with a long style. Therefore, we propose Lattus minor (O. Mielke, 1967), comb. nov.

Eutocus rogan (Evans, 1955), Eutocus brasilia (Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015), and Eutocus fosca (Evans, 1955), new combinations Phylogenetic analysis of the relatives of Artines Godman, 1901 (type species Thracides aepitus Geyer, 1832) reveals that Ginungagapus brasilia Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015 and Artines fosca Evans, 1955 (Fig. 6 magenta) are not monophyletic with the type species of their genera and instead are sisters to species of Eutocus Godman, 1901 (type species Eutocus phthia Godman, 1901, a junior subjective synonym of Apaustus facilis Pl ̂tz, 1884) (Fig. 6 red). The genitalia morphology and wing pattern of A. fosca already suggested its placement out of Artines, probably in Eutocus (Medeiros et al. 2019; Medeiros & Dolibaina, per. comm.). Carneiro et al. (2015) recovered G. brasilia and G. rogan (Evans, 1955), so far known from a female and males, respectively, nested deeply within Ginungagapus, however, both species share genitalic characters with Eutocus, possibly being erroneously combined to Ginungagapus due to convergent wing pattern and unsampled key taxa (Eutocus was not included in that study). Therefore, we propose Eutocus brasilia (Carneiro, O. Mielke & Casagrande, 2015), comb. nov., Eutocus rogan (Evans, 1955), comb. nov. (which is phenotypically similar to G. brasilia and has COI barcode, GenBank HM375842, closest to it: 6.8%, 45 bp difference), and Eutocus fosca (Evans, 1955), comb. nov. for the time-being, because previous generic placement of these species was clearly incorrect, and it is better to improve it here, while looking for better solutions. However, the nuclear genome tree illustrates that these species (Fig. 6 magenta) are more differentiated genetically from the core of Eutocus species (Fig. 6 red), which is also reflected in their morphological differences. In Eutocus sensu stricto palpi are long and thin, but in E. brasilia and E. rogan palpi are short and conical. The two alternatives to the proposed treatment would be to erect new and (nearly) monotypic genera for them (a splitting solution) or unify the entire clade that is sister to Tarmia Lindsey, 1925 (type species Tarmia monastica Lindsey, 1925) (Fig. 6) into a single genus Eutocus and regard its current constituents as subgenera (a lumping solution). Even more, Tarmia and Lattus Grishin, 2022 (type species Eutocus arabupuana Bell, 1932) could be included as subgenera in Eutocus (a super-lumping solution) as discussed by Zhang et al. (2022), and the Artines group would consist of two genera: Artines and Eutocus. Each of these alternatives has certain pros and cons. The splitting solution will result in morphologically compact genera, which may be aesthetically pleasing, but the number of genera may increase unnecessarily, adding not particularly distinct monotypic genera to the classification and putting the burden on the name users beyond Hesperiidae specialists. The lumping and super-lumping solutions would group into a single genus all relatives that were a challenge to divide into genera by morphology (as revealed by previous classification mistakes) and may be easier for the users of the names but will create a large and morphologically diverse genus that may be difficult for Hesperiidae specialists to accept. Therefore, a compromise was chosen here: we corrected obvious mistakes and restored monophyly of Artines and Ginungagapus with minimal adjustment of the current classification. However, the best solution will reveal itself after a comprehensive genomic and morphological analysis of the entire group.

Sarmientoia dinka Evans, 1952 is a new junior subjective synonym of Adina adrastor (Mabille and Boullet, 1912) Genomic sequencing of three specimens (1♁ and 2♀♀) from Brazil: Rio de Janeiro identified by phenotypic comparison as Salantoia dinka (Evans, 1952) (type locality not specified) (Fig. 1a cyan, d–f), known only from a single male holotype without a locality label (Fig. 1c), reveals that the holotype of Adina adrastor (Mabille and Boullet, 1912) (type locality in South America) (Fig. 1a magenta, b), a female, falls within their genetic variation. COI barcodes of the A. adrastor holotype and the specimens from Brazil differ by 0.46-0.6% (3-4 bp), and the specimens from Brazil show difference of 0.46% (3 bp) among them. Females from Brazil (Fig. 1e, f) are phenotypically similar to the holotype of A. adrastor, and a male (Fig. 1d), which is conspecific with the females as evidenced by DNA, is phenotypically close to the holotype of S. dinka. It is most likely that S. dinka is a male of female A. adrastor, the name kept in synonymy with Bungalotis midas (Cramer, 1775) (type locality in Suriname) since Evans (1952), who regarded this unique female as “an aberration without the spot in space 3 upf”, until it was sequenced, resurrected from synonymy, and designated as the type species of a new genus Adina Grishin, 2022 (Zhang et al. 2022). Therefore, we propose that Salantoia dinka (Evans, 1952), syn. nov. is a new junior subjective synonym of Adina adrastor (Mabille and Boullet, 1912). Then, we hypothesize that the type localities of both S. dinka and A. adrastor are in Southeast Brazil, possibly around Rio de Janeiro., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 94, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1952) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part II. Pyrginae. Section I. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 178 pp., pls. 110 - 125.","Zhang, J., Cong, Q., Shen, J. & Grishin, N. V. (2022) Taxonomic changes suggested by the genomic analysis of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Insecta Mundi, 0921, 1 - 135."]}

Fidius ochraceus (O. Mielke, 1980) confirmed by DNA as a species of Fidius Grishin, 2019 Assigned to the genus Fidius Grishin, 2019 (type species Vidius fido Evans, 1955) on the basis of phenotypic similarities with the type species (Cong et al. 2019b), Vidius ochraceus O. Mielke, 1980 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná) is presently confirmed as Fidius by genomic sequencing of its holotype and allotype (Fig. 7). The COI barcodes between F. fido and F. ochraceus differ by 6.5% (43 bp), which is a large distance for species so similar in their phenotypes., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 107, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Cong, Q., Zhang, J., Shen, J. & Grishin, N. V. (2019 b) Fifty new genera of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera). Insecta Mundi, 0731, 1 - 56."]}

Lindra brasus ackeryi O. Mielke, 1978 is a junior subjective synonym of Lindra neroides (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), new combination, and Lindra neroides huxleyi O. Mielke, 1978, new combination The taxonomic identities for a number of Hesperiidae species named by Herrich-Schäffer (1869) have been a challenge to determine due to overly brief description without giving localities for these species and the lack of type specimens that were either lost or are not recognizable. A few identification errors leading to misapplication of these names have been made (Evans 1955). When reviewing names proposed by Herrich-Schäffer in the context of additional information, such as Godman’s copies of unpublished drawings made by Pl̂tz, we found that Cobalus neroides Herrich-Schäffer, 1869, currently in Decinea Evans, 1955 (type species Hesperia decinea Hewitson, 1876), has been misidentified, an error we set out to correct here. We searched for the type material of C. neroides in MFNB, which incorporates the collection of Herrich-Schäffer in its holdings, but were not able to find any credible syntypes after carefully checking all Hesperiidae drawers on two separate visits. Therefore, we assume that the syntypes of C. neroides are either lost or unrecognizable. The original description presented in a form of identification key, directly compares C. neroides, female(s), to Cobalus corope (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), a species (currently in Tigasis Godman, 1900) with two extant syntypes (male and female). Because C. neroides types were female(s), we focus on the analysis of the female T. corope syntype (Fig. 5a). The two species share the following characters, translating the relevant segments from the Herrich-Schäffer key: “Hindwings unmarked, at most … [with] small … dots in cells 3 (-5) … a spot in cell 2 is shifted much further towards outer margin [not just below the discal cell spot].” The differences between T. corope and C. neroides are, for T. corope: “[Discal cell with] white longitudinal spot above the origin of the veins 3, 4, above [this spot] a fine dot; cell 2 with a narrow vertical slash, 3 with larger [spot], 6 and 7 with smaller decreasing dots. Beneath on the hindwing a middle dot and a series [of dots] in cells 2-6. Below ♀ with a pale smudge in the cell 1 b of the forewing”, and for C. neroides female: “[Discal cell with] small pale dot above its inner vein, cell 2 with a lunule, cell 3 with small square, 6 and 7 with small decreasing dots. Beneath FW as in corope. The dots on the forewing are barely recognizable.” The female shown in Fig. 5a is a true syntype of T. corope because it is from the Herrich-Schäffer collection according to its label, labeled as “corope ♀ ” (possibly in Herrich-Schäffer’s handwriting), matches the original description (except that the forewing spot in cell 3 is not larger than the “slash” in cell 2, could be a mistake in the description) and is curated as a type specimen in MFNB. Therefore, the appearance of this female would reflect what Herrich-Schäffer considered to be similar to C. neroides. Comparative analysis of this specimen and the descriptions suggests that the Hayward’s hypothesis (1949) that C. neroides, now in Decinea, is conspecific with Hesperia lydora (Pl̂tz, 1882) (type locality in Venezuela)—a hypothesis that was adopted by Evans (1955) and forms the basis for the current taxonomic treatment of these two taxa—is unlikely to be correct. Indeed, the relevant parts of the original description of H. lydora (also given as a key) can be translated as: “forewing with only one hyaline point by the apex … in cells 2 and 3 with square hyaline spots. Underside … hindwing with white dots in cells 2 and 3, the latter also visible above” (Pl̂tz 1882a). These characters are apparent in the published Draudt’s illustration (1921–1924) of C. neroides, which is possibly a copy of the original Pl̂tz drawing. On this illustration, the forewing has two small subapical spots, not one; the spot in cell 2 is moon-shaped, not square; the discal cell is with a spot (not mentioned and not shown in the illustration of H. lydora), albeit small; and the hindwing is without spots on dorsal side. To shed light on the identity of C. neroides, we turned to other sources. Pl̂tz included species described by Herrich-Schäffer and M̂schler in his keys and illustrated these specimens in his unpublished drawings (Godman 1907). Although there is no certainty that Pl̂tz did not misidentify these species or used type specimens in his work, many of these agreed well with the original descriptions and extant type specimens. We found this to be true for C. neroides. Godman (1907), who inspected unpublished drawings by Pl̂tz was not able to find specimens that look similar to C. neroides and even questioned whether this species was American. Hence, the drawing t[afel]. 534 was copied among others, now bound in BMNH (Fig. 5b). The drawing generally resembles the female syntype of T. corope and mostly agrees with the original description of C. neroides, except that it does not show any subapical dots. Draudt’s (1921 –1924) version of C. neroides (Fig. 5c) is similar, especially the ventral side illustration, which looks like a copy of the original Pl̂tz’s drawing, but dorsal side differs in showing a single subapical dot and being a larger specimen (reduced in Fig. 5c, ventral side to scale). Either the dorsal image was drawn from a specimen (and not Pl̂tz’s illustration), or Pl̂tz’s originals had several specimens illustrated, but not all were copied by Godman’s artist(s). Moreover, in his description of C. neroides, Pl ̂tz (1882b) refers to the forewing apex either with a single point or unmarked. It is likely that at least two specimens were involved, unless a single specimen differed in the number of spots on the left and the right sides. The most unusual feature in both Godman’s and Draudt’s illustrations of C. neroides is the wedge-shaped (per Pl̂tz’, but more like an arrowhead) spot near tornus of ventral forewing. This character is not common in Hesperiidae, and may be present in some Old World species (e.g., Caltoris Swinhoe, 1893 and Pelopidas Walker, 1870), possibly causing Godman (1907) to doubt American provenance of this specimen. A specimen that looks very much like this illustration (Fig. 5d), especially due to the rarely occurring arrowhead tornal forewing spots, was found in MFNB drawer in the same column and just following a male and female syntypes of Decinea dama (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869). This specimen of unknown provenance is not a syntype of D. dama because it does not agree with its original description, but it is a nearly perfect match to illustrations and the original description of C. neroides. It has two subapical dots (albeit very small), and the spot in forewing cell 2 can be called a “moon” by shape, fully agreeing with the original description in both characters. This specimen is from the Sommer collection (bought by Staudinger in 1873), not from the Herrich-Schäffer collection, and therefore we were not able to directly link it with either C. neroides or its description published in 1869. Judging only from its age, this specimen could have been collected prior to 1869 and might have been seen by Herrich-Schäffer, and there is a remote possibility that it might have been a syntype of C. neroides. It is possible that this is one of the specimens illustrated as C. neroides by Pl̂tz. However, if it was the case, we would need to explain the difference in the number of subapical spots: two in this specimen, two in original description of C. neroides, but one or none according to Pl̂tz (who might have overlooked these small spots, nearly absent on ventral side). In any case, this specimen agrees with all the information available about C. neroides, and most likely is that species. This is not the species currently called Decinea neroides, and it does not even belong to Decinea (see below). We hereby designate the specimen shown in Fig. 5d as the neotype of Cobalus neroides Herrich-Schäffer, 1869. We believe that there is an exceptional need to designate this neotype, because the name neroides has been misapplied and its current usage does not agree with the information known about this taxon. Our neotype of C. neroides satisfies all requirements set forth by the ICZN Article 75.3, namely: 75.3.1. It is designated to rectify the taxonomic identity of Cobalus neroides Herrich-Schäffer, 1869, which has been inconsistent with the information available about this species; 75.3.2. The characters for the taxon have been given in its original description in a form of a key by Herrich-Schäffer (1869) and are detailed above; 75.3.3. The neotype specimen bears the following five rectangular white labels: [Hew], [Coll. Sommer], [Coll. | Staudinger], [Dama | H-Sch.], and [DNA sample ID: | NVG-21114E09 | c/o Nick V. Grishin]; 75.3.4. Our search for the syntypes is described above, it was not successful, and for that reason we consider that the specimens composing the type series of C. neroides are either lost or unrecognizable; 75.3.5. As detailed above, the neotype is fully consistent with the original description, and is an excellent match to Godman’s copy of Pl̂tz’s drawing and Draudt’s illustration; 75.3.6. The neotype is from unknown locality, and the type locality was not specified for C. neroides, however, a likely origin of the neotype is in Southeast Brazil, probably in Rio de Janeiro; 75.3.7. The neotype is in the collection of the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany (MFNB). The neotype of C. neroides, has been sequenced and compared by phylogenetic with other Hesperiidae, revealing that it is placed deep within Lindra Evans, 1955 (type species Carystus simulius H. Druce, 1876) (Fig. 4 magenta within red). Notably, due to genetic similarities, it is conspecific with Lindra brasus ackeryi O. Mielke, 1978 (type locality in Brazil: Rio de Janeiro) and Lindra brasus huxleyi O. Mielke, 1978 (type locality in Brazil: Paraná). For instance, the COI barcodes of C. neroides neotype and the holotype and allotype of L. brasus ackeryi are 100% identical and differ from the holotype of L. brasus huxleyi by 0.15% (1bp). With neroides, ackeryi, and huxleyi clustering at the same species level, the genomic analysis (Fig. 4) leaves Lindra brasus (O. Mielke, 1968) (type locality in Brazil: Distrito Federal), as a distinct species, which becomes monotypic. The holotype of L. brasus shows 3.3% (22 bp) COI barcode difference from the neotype of C. neroides. Therefore, we propose Lindra neroides (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869), comb. nov., place Lindra brasus ackeryi O. Mielke, 1978, syn. nov. as its junior subjective synonym, and recognize its subspecies Lindra neroides huxleyi O. Mielke, 1978, comb. nov. Finally, on the basis of these genetic similarities and known distributions of these taxa, we hypothesize that the type locality of Lindra neroides (neotype of unknown provenance) is in Southeast Brazil, likely in Rio de Janeiro., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on pages 99-101, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. (1869) Prodromus systematis lepidopterorum. Versuch einer systematischen Anordnung der Schmetterlinge. Correspondenz-Blatt des zoologisch-mineralogischen Vereines in Regensburg, 23, 184 - 204.","Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488.","Godman, F. D. (1907) Notes on the American species of Hesperiidae described by Pl ˆ tz. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20, 132 - 155. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222930709487316","Draudt, M. W. K. (1921 - 1924) B. Grypocera, breitk ˆ pfige Tagfalter. In: Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde. Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart, pp. 833 - 1011 + 1046 - 1139, pls. 1113 B + 1160 - 1193."]}

Orthos hyalinus (E. Bell, 1930), reinstated status and Orthos minka Evans, 1955, new status Genomic sequencing and comparison of Eutychide hyalinus Bell, 1930 (type locality in Brazil: Santa Catarina, holotype NVG-18026A06 sequenced) and Orthos orthos minka Evans, 1955 (type locality Brazil: Amazonas, Manaus), currently subspecies of Eutychide orthos Godman, 1900 (type locality Panama: Chiriqui), which is the type species of Orthos Evans, 1955, reveal prominent genetic differentiation among them (Fig. 4 magenta, olive and green). E.g., COI barcodes of E. hyalinus and O. o. minka respectively differ from O. orthos by 5.9% (39 bp) and 8.3% (55 bp). The genetic differentiation of O. o. minka is especially large, near the levels characteristic of subgenera (Fig. 4). Taken together with phenotypic differences described by Evans (1955), who particularly distinguished O. o. minka by the shape of brands and unmarked wings, the genetic differences support species status for these taxa: Orthos hyalinus (E. Bell, 1930), stat. rest. and Orthos minka Evans, 1955, stat. nov. Genitalia of the three species differ as well, in the shape of harpe and the extent of its separation from ampulla, although not described, but illustrated by Evans (1955)., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Cantha eteocla (Plötz, 1882) and Cantha buriti (O. Mielke, 1968), new combinations Hesperia eteocla Pl ̂tz, 1882 (type locality in Brazil: Rio de Janeiro) and Phlebodes buriti O. Mielke, 1968 (type locality in Brazil: Mato Grosso) (Fig. 8 dark green), including their primary type specimens, cluster among Cantha Evans, 1955 (type species Cantha calva Evans, 1955) (Fig. 8 purple) in the nuclear genomic tree and are not monophyletic with Papilio pertinax Stoll, [1781] (type locality in Suriname), the type species of Phlebodes Hübner, [1819], the genus of their current placement. Therefore, we propose Cantha eteocla (Pl̂tz, 1882), comb. nov. and Cantha buriti (O. Mielke, 1968), comb. nov., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on page 108, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Evans, W. H. (1955) A catalogue of the American Hesperiidae indicating the classification and nomenclature adopted in the British Museum (Natural History). Part IV. Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. The Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London, v + 499 pp., pls. 454 - 488."]}

Carystus rufoventris Austin & O. Mielke, 2007 is a subspecies of Carystus elvira (Plötz, 1882) Hesperia elvira Pl ̂tz, 1882 (type locality in South America), currently a valid species of Carystus Hübner, [1819] (type species Papilio jolus Stoll, 1782) was described from an unstated number of specimens, one of which was referenced by its number 5277 in MFNB (Pl̂tz, 1882a). Godman (1907) did not find a sufficiently similar specimen among those accessible to him, and commissioned the reproduction of the original drawing t[afel]. 436 by Pl̂tz. The original of this plate is presumed lost, but these Godman’s copies are in BMNH and t. 436 is show in Fig. 3a. It is likely that another copy of the original drawing of H. elvira (rather than a drawing made from the actual specimen) was made and eventually published by Draudt (1921 –1924) (Fig. 3b). The two renderings are sufficiently similar and only differ in the amount of detail shown, suggesting that Godman’s watercolor may be more accurate than Draudt’s printed version. We were not able to find a specimen that looks similar to these illustrations in MFNB, also failing to find a specimen with the number 5277 referenced in the original description of H. elvira. However, we found a record in the collection catalog for this number, reproduced in Fig. 3c. The catalog lists a single specimen of an undetermined (at that time) species from Suriname collected by Hugo. Judging by the handwriting, this catalog entry was made by the Entomology curator in MFNB Carl Heinrich Hopffer who died in 1876, therefore this specimen existed before the description of H. elvira in 1882. It is not clear whether other specimens were known to Pl̂tz at the time of description. The lack of their explicit mention in the description does not necessarily imply the absence of other specimens. Moreover, Pl̂tz listed South America instead of Suriname as the locality for H. elvira, which suggests that there might have been specimens from other localities in South America in addition to 5277 from Suriname. The only known specimen identified as C. elvira is a female from Suriname in RMNH collection reported by de Jong (1983) (Fig. 3d). It differs in wingshape and by the presence of subapical hyaline spots from the H. elvira drawings (Fig. 3a, b) and therefore is not the specimen illustrated, which was likely a male. Judging from the round handwritten locality label (Fig. 3d) and the pin, the female specimen in RMNH is from the ancient collections and therefore might have been collected as part of the same series with the Surinamese specimen 5277 listed in MFNB catalog. Because both specimens are from Suriname, phenotypically similar to each other, and uniquely different from any other species, we agree with de Jong’s identification of the female as C. elvira. Carystus rufoventris Austin & O. Mielke, 2007 (type locality in Brazil: Rondônia) was described on the basis of a single specimen, a male (Fig. 3e). Austin & Mielke (2007) compared their new species with C. elvira and concluded that they are distinct without inspecting any C. elvira specimens. We sequenced genomes of the holotype male of C. rufoventris and the female of C. elvira reported by de Jong (1983) and suggest that they are conspecific. First, their COI barcodes are 100% identical and they are grouped closely together in the genomic tree (Fig. 4). Second, the two specimens look sufficiently similar in appearance to be a pair (Fig. 3d, e). Third, they are from localities that frequently harbor the same species in a complex of allopatric similar-looking taxa (Suriname and Brazil: Rondônia). However, both specimens differ from the drawings of C. elvira by having subapical hyaline spots, although the spots are reduced in the male. We also see that the male has only one hyaline spot in the forewing discal cell, not two as the female and the drawings, and a male collected in Peru: Madre de Dios has no spots at all (Fig. 3g). Moreover, a photographed live male (Fig. 3f) lacks subapical spots at least ventrally. Therefore, the hyaline spots and their number may be variable in this species. Austin & Mielke (2007) suggested that the smaller size of C. rufoventris as one of its characters. However, the specimen shown in Fig. 3g that is more similar to C. rufoventris than to C. elvira, is even larger than the original description of C. elvira indicates: nearly 20 mm (the ruler photographed together) vs. 19 mm forewing length in C. elvira. For these reasons, we propose that C. rufoventris is a subspecies of Carystus elvira (Pl̂tz, 1882): Carystus elvira rufoventris Austin & O. Mielke, 2007, stat. nov. Being conservative, we refrain from synonymizing the two, because of possible consistent wing pattern differences between populations from the Guianas and Rondônia/ Madre de Dios, as described by Austin & Mielke, (2007). We hope to test this taxonomic hypothesis further when additional specimens become available, in particular, a male from Suriname without apical spots and with two spots in forewing discal cell that would be suitable for C. elvira neotype designation., Published as part of Zhang, Jing, Dolibaina, Diego R., Cong, Qian, Shen, Jinhui, Song, Leina, Mielke, Carlos G. C., Casagrande, Mirna M., Mielke, Olaf H. H. & Grishin, Nick V., 2023, Taxonomic notes on Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera), pp. 91-114 in Zootaxa 5271 (1) on pages 95-98, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5271.1.3, http://zenodo.org/record/7864266, {"references":["Godman, F. D. (1907) Notes on the American species of Hesperiidae described by Pl ˆ tz. Annals and Magazine of natural History, Series 7, 20, 132 - 155. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 00222930709487316","Draudt, M. W. K. (1921 - 1924) B. Grypocera, breitk ˆ pfige Tagfalter. In: Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde. Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart, pp. 833 - 1011 + 1046 - 1139, pls. 1113 B + 1160 - 1193.","de Jong, R. (1983) Annotated list of the Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) of Surinam, with descriptions of new taxa. Tijdschrift voor entomologie, 126, 233 - 268.","Austin, G. T. & Mielke, O. H. H. (2007) Hesperiidae of Rondonia, Brazil: Carystus, with descriptions of two new species (Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae). Bulletin of the Allyn Museum, 148, 1 - 13."]}

The comparative genomics of butterflies yields additional insights into their phylogeny and classification that are compiled here. As a result, 3 genera, 5 subgenera, 5 species, and 3 subspecies are proposed as new, i.e., in Hesperiidae: Antina Grishin, gen. n. (type species Antigonus minor O. Mielke, 1980), Pompe Grishin and Lamas, gen. n. (type species Lerema postpuncta Draudt, 1923), and Curva Grishin, gen. n. (type species Moeris hyagnis Godman, 1900); in Lycaenidae: Fussia Grishin, subgen. n. (type species Polyommatus standfussi Grum-Grshimailo, 1891) and Pava Grishin, subgen. n. (type species Thecla panava Westwood, 1852); in Hesperiidae: Monoca Grishin, subgen. n. (type species Tagiades monophthalma Plötz, 1884), Putuma Grishin, subgen. n. (type species Tisias putumayo Constantino and Salazar, 2013), and Rayia Grishin, subgen. n. (type species Mastor perigenes Godman, 1900); Cissia wahala Grishin, sp. n. (Nymphalidae; type locality in Mexico: Oaxaca); in Hesperiidae: Hedone mira Grishin and Lamas, sp. n. (type locality in Peru: Apurímac), Vidius pompeoides Grishin, sp. n. (type locality in Brazil: Amazonas), Parphorus hermieri Grishin, sp. n. (Hesperiidae; type locality in Brazil: Rondônia), and Zenis par Grishin, sp. n. (Hesperiidae; type locality in Peru: Cuzco); in Pieridae: Glutophrissa drusilla noroesta Grishin, ssp. n. (type locality in USA: Texas, Cameron Co.) and Pieris marginalis siblanca Grishin, ssp. n. (type locality in USA: New Mexico, Lincoln Co.), and Argynnis cybele neomexicana Grishin, ssp. n. (Nymphalidae; type locality in USA: New Mexico, Sandoval Co.). Acidalia leto valesinoides-alba Reuss, [1926] and Acidalia nokomis valesinoides-alba Reuss, [1926] are unavailable names. Neotypes are designated for Mylothris margarita Hübner, [1825] (type locality in Brazil) and Papilio coras Cramer, 1775 (type locality becomes USA: Pennsylvania, Montgomery Co., Flourtown). Mylothris margarita Hübner, [1825] becomes a junior objective synonym of Pieris ilaire Godart, 1819, currently a junior subjective synonym of Glutophrissa drusilla (Cramer, 1777). Lectotypes are designated for Hesperia ceramica Plötz, 1886 (type locality in Indonesia: Seram Island), Pamphila trebius Mabille, 1891 (type locality Colombia: Bogota), Methionopsis modestus Godman, 1901 and Papias microsema Godman, 1900 (type locality in Mexico: Tabasco), Hesperia fusca Grote & Robinson, 1867 (type locality in USA: Georgia), Goniloba corusca Herrich-Schäffer, 1869, and Goniloba devanes Herrich-Schäffer, 1869; the type localities of the last two species, together with Pamphila stigma Skinner, 1896 and Carystus (Argon) lota (Hewitson, 1877), are deduced to be in South America. Type locality of Junonia pacoma Grishin, 2020 is in Sinaloa, not Sonora (Mexico). Abdomen is excluded from the holotype of Staphylus ascalon (Staudinger, 1876). Furthermore, a number of taxonomic changes are proposed. Alciphronia Koçak, 1992 is treated as a subgenus, not a synonym of Heodes Dalman, 1816. The following genera are treated as subgenera: Lafron Grishin, 2020 of Lycaena [Fabricius], 1807, Aremfoxia Real, 1971 of Epityches D'Almeida, 1938, Placidina D'Almeida, 1928 of Pagyris Boisduval, 1870, and Methionopsis Godman, 1901 of Mnasinous Godman, 1900. Polites (Polites) coras (Cramer, 1775) is not a nomen dubium but a valid species. The following are species-level taxa (not subspecies or synonyms of taxa given in parenthesis): Lycaena pseudophlaeas (Lucas, 1866) and Lycaena hypophlaeas (Boisduval, 1852) (not Lycaena phlaeas (Linnaeus, 1761), Satyrium dryope (W. H. Edwards, 1870) (not Satyrium sylvinus (Boisduval, 1852)), Apodemia cleis (W. H. Edwards, 1882) (not Apodemia zela (Butler, 1870)), Epityches thyridiana (Haensch, 1909), comb. nov. (not Epityches ferra Haensch, 1909, comb. nov.), Argynnis bischoffii W. H. Edwards, 1870 (not Argynnis mormonia Boisduval, 1869), Argynnis leto Behr, 1862 (not Argynnis cybele (Fabricius, 1775)), Boloria myrina (Cramer, 1777) (not Boloria selene ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775)), Phyciodes jalapeno J. Scott, 1998 (not Phyciodes phaon (W. H. Edwards, 1864)), Phyciodes incognitus Gatrelle, 2004 and Phyciodes diminutor J. Scott, 1998 (not Phyciodes cocyta (Cramer, 1777)), Phyciodes orantain J. Scott, 1998 (not Phyciodes tharos (Drury, 1773)), Phyciodes anasazi J. Scott, 1994 (not Phyciodes batesii (Reakirt, [1866])), Cercyonis silvestris (W. H. Edwards, 1861) (not Cercyonis sthenele (Boisduval, 1852)), Paramacera allyni L. Miller, 1972 and Paramacera rubrosuffusa L. Miller, 1972 (not Paramacera xicaque 2 (Reakirt, [1867])), Cissia cheneyorum (R. Chermock, 1949), Cissia pseudocleophes (L. Miller, 1976), and Cissia anabelae (L. Miller, 1976) (not Cissia rubricata (W. H. Edwards, 1871)), Tarsoctenus gaudialis (Hewitson, 1876) (not Tarsoctenus corytus (Cramer, 1777)), Nisoniades inca (Lindsey, 1925) (not Nisoniades mimas (Cramer, 1775), Xenophanes ruatanensis Godman & Salvin, 1895 (not Xenophanes tryxus (Stoll, 1780)), Lotongus shigeoi Treadaway & Nuyda, 1994, Lotongus balta Evans, 1949, Lotongus zalates (Mabille, 1893), and Lotongus taprobanus (Plötz, 1885) (not Lotongus calathus (Hewitson, 1876)), Oxynthes martius (Mabille, 1889) (not Oxynthes corusca (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869)), Notamblyscirtes durango J. Scott, 2017 (not Notamblyscirtes simius W. H. Edwards, 1881), Hedone praeceps Scudder, 1872, Hedone catilina (Plötz, 1886), and Hedone calla (Evans, 1955) (not Hedone vibex (Geyer, 1832)), Atalopedes huron (W. H. Edwards, 1863) (not Atalopedes campestris (Boisduval, 1852)), Papias microsema Godman, 1900 (not Mnasinous phaeomelas (Hübner, [1829]), comb. nov.), Papias unicolor (Hayward, 1938) and Papias monus Bell, 1942 (not Papias phainis Godman, 1900), Nastra leuconoides (Lindsey, 1925) (not Nastra leucone (Godman, 1900)), Nastra fusca (Grote & Robinson, 1867) (not Nastra lherminier (Latreille, [1824])), Zenis hemizona (Dyar, 1918) and Zenis janka Evans, 1955 (not Zenis jebus (Plötz, 1882)), Carystus (Argon) argus Möschler, 1879 (not Carystus (Argon) lota Hewitson, 1877), and Lycas devanes (Herrich-Schäffer, 1869) (not Lycas argentea (Hewitson, 1866)). Borbo impar ceramica (Plötz, 1886), comb. nov. is not a synonym of Pelopidas agna larika (Pagenstecher, 1884) but a valid subspecies. Parnassius smintheus behrii W. H. Edwards, 1870 and Cercyonis silvestris incognita J. Emmel, T. Emmel & Mattoon, 2012 are subspecies, not species. The following are junior subjective synonyms: Shijimiaeoides Beuret, 1958 of Glaucopsyche Scudder, 1872, Micropsyche Mattoni, 1981 of Turanana Bethune-Baker, 1916, Cyclyrius Butler, 1897 of Leptotes Scudder, 1876, Mesenopsis Godman & Salvin, 1886 of Xynias Hewitson, 1874, Carystus tetragraphus Mabille, 1891 of Lotongus calathus parthenope (Plötz, 1886), Parnara bipunctata Elwes & J. Edwards, 1897 of Borbo impar ceramica (Plötz, 1886), Hesperia peckius W. Kirby, 1837 of Polites (Polites) coras (Cramer, 1775), and Lerodea neamathla Skinner & R. Williams, 1923 of Nastra fusca (Grote & Robinson, 1867). The following transfers are proposed: of species between genera (i.e., revised genus-species combinations): Nervia niveostriga (Trimen, 1864) (not Kedestes Watson, 1893), Leona lota Evans, 1937 (not Lennia Grishin, 2022), Leona pruna (Evans, 1937) and Leona reali (Berger, 1962) (not Pteroteinon Watson, 1893), Mnasinous phaeomelas (Hübner, [1829]) (not Papias Godman, 1900), Saturnus jaguar (Steinhauser, 2008) (not Parphorus Godman, 1900), Parphorus harpe (Steinhauser, 2008) (not Saturnus Evans, 1955), Parphorus kadeni (Evans, 1955) (not Lento Evans, 1955), and Calpodes chocoensis (Salazar & Constantino, 2013) (not Megaleas Godman, 1901); of subspecies between species (i.e., revised species-subspecies combinations): Melitaea sterope W. H. Edwards, 1870 of Chlosyne palla (Boisduval, 1852) (not Chlosyne acastus (W. H. Edwards, 1874)) and Panoquina ocola distipuncta Johnson & Matusik, 1988 of Panoquina lucas (Fabricius, 1793); and junior subjective synonym transferred between species: Rhinthon zaba Strand, 1921 of Conga chydaea (A. Butler, 1877), not Cynea cynea (Hewitson, 1876), Pamphila stigma Skinner, 1896 of Hedone catilina (Plötz, 1886), not Hedone praeceps Scudder, 1872, and Pamphila ortygia Möschler, 1883 of Panoquina hecebolus (Scudder, 1872), not Panoquina ocola (W. H. Edwards, 1863). Proposed taxonomic changes result in additional revised species-subspecies combinations: Lycaena pseudophlaeas abbottii (Holland, 1892), Satyrium dryope putnami (Hy. Edwards, 1877), Satyrium dryope megapallidum Austin, 1998, Satyrium dryope itys (W. H. Edwards, 1882), Satyrium dryope desertorum (F. Grinnell, 1917), Argynnis bischoffi opis W. H. Edwards, 1874, Argynnis bischoffi washingtonia W. Barnes & McDunnough, 1913, Argynnis bischoffi erinna W. H. Edwards, 1883, Argynnis bischoffi kimimela Marrone, Spomer & J. Scott, 2008, Argynnis bischoffi eurynome W. H. Edwards, 1872, Argynnis bischoffi artonis W. H. Edwards, 1881, Argynnis bischoffi luski W. Barnes & McDunnough, 1913, Argynnis leto letona (dos Passos & Grey, 1945), Argynnis leto pugetensis (F. Chermock & Frechin, 1947), Argynnis leto eileenae (J. Emmel, T. Emmel & Mattoon, 1998), Boloria myrina nebraskensis (W. Holland, 1928), Boloria myrina sabulocollis Kohler, 1977, Boloria myrina tollandensis (W. Barnes & Benjamin, 1925), Boloria myrina albequina (W. Holland, 1928), Boloria myrina atrocostalis (Huard, 1927), Boloria myrina terraenovae (W. Holland, 1928), Phyciodes anasazi apsaalooke J. Scott, 1994, Polites coras surllano J. Scott, 2006, and Curva darienensis (Gaviria, Siewert, Mielke & Casagrande, 2018). Specimen curated as the holotype of Acidalia leto valesinoides-alba Reuss, [1926] is Argynnis leto letona (dos Passos & Grey, 1945) (not A. leto leto Behr, 1862) from USA: Utah, Provo. A synonymic list of available genus-group names for Lycaeninae [Leach], [1815] is given. Unless stated otherwise, all subgenera, species, subspecies and synonyms of mentioned genera and species are transferred with their parent taxa, and others remain as previously classified.

Two new skipper butterfly (Hesperiidae) species are described from the United States: Staphylus floridus Grishin, sp. n. (type locality in Florida, Volusia Co.) and Staphylus ecos Grishin, sp. n. (type locality in Texas, Brewster Co.). They are cryptic and hence escaped recognition. They differ from their sister species by the relative size and morphology of genitalia and by genotype—including and beyond the COI barcode—thus suggesting genetic isolation that argues for their species-level status. A lectotype is designated for Helias ascalaphus Staudinger, 1876. Staphylus opites (Godman & Salvin, 1896), stat. rest. is a species-level taxon and not a synonym of Staphylus vincula (Plötz, 1886), while Pholisora iguala Williams & Bell, 1940, syn. n. is a junior subjective synonym of S. vincula.