Matskási István (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 97. (Budapest 2005)

Bálint, Zs.: A review of the Neotropical hairstreak genus Annamaria with notes on further genera (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

Recent systematics ROBBINS (2004: 118-119) listed his "Lamasina" (= Annamaria) as belonging to the newly established Brangas section. However the entity has not been diagnosed, not even cryptically in the text like some other sections newly proposed. Consequently, I cannot use his system, but will propose some distint tribe (BÁLINT, in prep.), which will include most of the genera of the "large" eumaeines (I list them in brackets; authors and dates can be taken from LAMAS 2004) placed by ROBBINS in his sections Atlides (genera Areas, Atlides, Aveexcrenota, Denivia, Lucilda, Margaritheclus, Pseudolycaena, Riojana, Theritas), Brangas (genera Annamaria, Brangas, Chopinia, Cryptaenota, Enos, Evenus, Ipocia, Macusia), and Eumaeus (genera Mithras, Paiwarria, Paraspiculatus, Theorema) and still some others. Why I disagree with the system proposed by ROBBINS? According to ROBBINS 2004: xxv) this group is monophyletic on the basis of biological homogenity, which is also supported by genital character structures and unique androconia considered to be lost by ROBBINS in certain taxa for example in "Evenus" (BRÉVIGNON 2002). In my opinion this particular "Evenus" character is not apomorphy (see above), as its absence indicates plesiomorphy but not a derivative character state. I presume that the development of a special kind of androconia is so costly for a clade that if it is derived in the lineage, the character is kept as far as possible. Somehow similar situation was speculated for Riodinidae by HALL & HARVEY (2003: 192-193). Moreover via such lumper classification for Evenus and its related genera results tremendeous information loss in the case of these particularly gorgeous butterflies. ROBBINS (2004: 119) placed Annamaria in an intermediate position between the genus Enos JOHNSON, KRUSE et KROENLEIN, 1997 (type species: Thecla thara HEWITSON, 1867) and Evenus, as members of the newly established Brangas section. This hypothesis has to be evaluated since ROBBINS did not present any diagnosis or description for this assemblage (which harbors groups of superficially very different eumeines inhabiting different types of habitats). Since the genus Brangas has been mentioned first indicating as to be the basal taxon, I express again my doubts also in the correctness of the Brangas section sensu ROBBINS as a monophyly: Brangas possesses a peculiar hind wing ventral androconia discovered and figured by GODMAM & SALVIN (1887: 24; pi. 50, fig. 13a). It should be a derivative genus. * Acknowledgements - Present paper was partly prepared during two longer research visits in BMNH (London) taken in 2000 and 2003 supported by the Royal Society, and during a shorter visit