Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 74. (Budapest 1982)

Vojnits, A.: A revision of the "Eupithecia innotata group", I. (Lepidoptera, Geometridae)

ANNALES HISTORICO-NATURALES MUSEI NATIONALIS HUNGARICI Tomus 74. Budapest, 1982 p. 217-239. A revision of the "Eupithecia innotata group", I. (Lepidoptera, Geometridae)* by A. M. VoJNiTS, Budapest Abstract. — A taxonomic treatment, of Asian (mainly Central Asian) materials, of Eupithecia recentissima sp. n., E. omnigera sp. n., E. sclerata sp. n., E. paupera sp. n. ( = ab. pauper a DIETZE), E. fulgurata sp. n., ( = fulgurata DIETZE in litt.), E. inexplicabilis sp. n. ( = concoloris DIETZE in litt.), E.proprivata sp. n. (= ab.privata DIETZE); E. relaxata DIETZTE sp. inquirenda; E. costisignata DIETZE, 1913, nec 1903; E. innotata HUFN. contracta DIETZE = gen. aest.; E. parallelaria BOHATSCH, E. mitigata DIETZE, E. praesignata BOHATSCH, E. corroborata DIETZE, E. omniparens DIETZE, bonae spp.; E. ochridata PINKER from Asia. Woth 24 figures. The fact that a lepidopteran group is extremely rich in species and concurrently also widely distributed is regarded, simultaneously, as either advantageous or deplorable. Such a group is also the Eupithecini. It goes without saying, of course, that an appraisal like the above one springs wholly from practical and not at all from scientific considerations. It is generally advantageous to be able to study zoogeographical and systematical problems within a taxonomic unit, while, on the other hand, it is rather difficult to keep these voluminous groups "under control". The several examples** given below belong among the simplest cases occurring in the group Eupithecini, and they still cause grave difficulties in the course of classificatory elaborations. I. Conforming or nearly conforming external morphology, but entirely dissimilar genitalic configurations : Eupithecia infecta VOJNITS, 1981, appears to be indistinguishable from E. lasciva VOJNITS, 1981, yet their genitalic structures are totally different. Eupithecia dura\omus, 1981, would, by its external features, belong in the "selinata group", but the genitalia are wholly alien to it. Eupithecia recens DIETZE, 1903, and E. repentina VOJNITS, 1978, are externally highly similar* the male genitalia differ conspicuously while those of the females are utterly alien***. Eupithecia vivida VOJNITS, 1978, would, by its external morphology, be doubtless assigneable to the "innotata group" under discussion, but the male genitalia are wholly different, the femalegenitalia and sternite VIII of the males show basically different patterns. Eupithecia irreperta VOJNITS, 1978, can hardly be separated from E. vivida VOJNITS, 1978, by external features, but the valvae, aedoeagi, sternites VIII and the bursae copulatrices display differences nearly warranting generic separation ! If only the external characteristics are taken into consideration, Eupithecia eximia VOJNITS, 1978, belongs unequivocally in the "innotata group". However, the male genitalia preclude any such relegation. The same holds for E. fatigata VOJNITS, 1978: externally similar, but the genitalia are of a special type. Extreme morphological similarities may cause endless confusion. While, for instance, the series of type-specimens of Eupithecia melanochroa WEHRLI, 1927, was supposed to consist of uniformly *Studies on Palaearctic Eupithecia species, XV. **The examples are taken from my papers discussing Asiatic (mainly Chinese and Nepalese) species. ***Thc problems involved in identifying such morphologically similar species are occasionally rathertrying. H. INOUE, an excellent specialist, believed that E. recens occurs in Japan, that E. repentina is a junior synonym of recens, and that the drawing of genitalia I published of recens represents a still unknown species. Studies of the type-specimens proved, however, that repentina is a good species, the figure in question does in fact represent recens, and that recens does not occur in Japan. Annls hist.-nat. Mus. natn. hung., 74, 1982