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

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

"conforming" exemplars, revision demostrated a composition made of two species. The male genitalia of the two species are easily distinguishable and those of the females are not even similar to each other*. II. Agreeing genitalic features and greatly dissimilar external morhological characteristics. Dozens of examples could be put forth — one should, however, suffice. Eupithecia otiosa VOJNITS, 1981, appears to be much removed from E. lasciva VOJNITS, 1981, as to external features; the configuration of the genitalia is nearly the same**. It has not succeeded so far — with the exception of some mainly European and North American groups — to harmonize the "systems" elaborated on the basis of external morphological features*** and on the configuration of the genitalia. In this respect, the Asian species are in a profound state of confusion at the present stage of elaboration. In addition, interconnections concerning the structure of the genital components are far from being clarified : if valval and aedoeagal forms, or those of the ventral plates and the bursae copulatrices, are regarded separately, there is not much hope for the evolvement of parallel series. It follows that at the present time I cannot but regard as unfounded all subgenera, claimed as phylogenetically established groups, within the tribe Eupithecini and especially in the genus Eupithecia. All subgenera described so far have, in the last analysis, been erected for wholly practical purposes. For a verisimilar classification all, or the great majority, of the Asian, African and other species must first become known. A systematic evaluation or interpretation of a large taxonomic group is manifestly impossible without due consideration of the totality of the given unit. It is also from these same practical considerations that I have used and still use such "group" designations; the invariable application of the quotation-marks indicate that at the present stage of investigations no systematical — phylogenetical significance is attributed to them. It were equally precipitate, especially in a group still as chaotic as the present one, to talk about subspecies, super- or semispecies. To do that, basic nomenclatorial and systematical mistakes must first be clarified. Eupithecia omnigera sp. n. Derivation of specific name : a label name of the holotype Diagnosis. Of considerable stature; length of fore wing 12.5 mm; wings as elongated as in E. corroborate Dietze. Fore wing fuscous, transverse stripes yellow, discal spot long, dark brown. Hind wing whitish, discal spot minute, transverse lines obsolete. Underside of wings whitish, pattern elements yellowish brown. Cilie medium long, shiny yellowish brown. Genitalia, çf : Greatly resembling those of the related species, but aedoeagus with the dentiform cornuti emergent from a heavily sclerotized lamella (Fig. 1.). 9 unknown. Biology. First stages and foodplant unknown. Flight period of imagos also unrecorded. Distribution. Described from Central Asia. — Locus typicus : Korla. Specific differences. Externally, the new species resembles a very large and extremely light E. ochridata PINKER; the structure of the aedoeagus is different. Remarks. The label name "omnigera''' is probably the result of a confusion with che nominate species Eupithecia omniparens DIETZE; the name "omnigerá" has never appeared in print. Holotype çf : "innotata form, omnigera; Übergang zu parallelaria Korla" "Zool. Mus. Berlin" "gen. prep. No. DR. A. VOJNITS NO. 13549 çf".— Holotype deposited in the Zoologisches Museum in der Humboldt Universität, Berlin. Slide: No. 13549 (çf), gen. prep. A. VOJNITS. 'Another argument for the examination of all specimens composing the original series and not merely that of the holotype or of some paratypes. ••Statements like this and the preceding ones can of course be made only on the basis of series at hand. ***Much has been written about the so-called classical morphological features — e.g. the coloration and pattern in Lepidoptera — and a general emphasis, especially lately, has been put on the "valuelessness" of these characteristics as against the "merits" of the anatomcal (genitalic) features. However, an evaluation from systematical — phylogenetical points of view of these character complexes is still wanting.