Kaszab Zoltán (szerk.): A Magyar Természettudományi Múzeum évkönyve 69. (Budapest 1977)

Vojnits, A. M.: Archieariinae, Rhodometrinae, Geometrinae II, Sterrhinae II and Ennominae III (Lepidoptera, Geometridae) from Mongolia

ad 34. Dysgnophos benepunctarius (WEHRLI, 1922) (D. ent. Z. Iris, 36: 16-17). — VIIDALEPP'S work ( 1975) gave no nearer details concerning Gnophos benepunctarius WEHRLI. However, he published G. erschoffi WEHRLI, 1922, as new to the fauna of Mongolia. As I have discussed in great detail in my previous paper (VOJNITS 1975), the nominate species erschoffi WEHRLI and benepunctarius WEHRLI are synonymous, notwithstanding the fact that their author relegated them to different groups. Of them, benepunctarius WEHRLI should be regarded as valid. Incidentally WEHRLI intended erschoffi (= benepunctarius) to be a redescription of 67. creperarius ERSCHOFF, 1876-7 ; a species now no more interprétable. — In the same paper, I elevated the taxon Dysgnophos WEHRLI, 1951* to generic rank. ad 38. Pterygnophos oehrofaseiatus (STAUDINGER 1885) (D. ent. Z. Iris, 8: 362-364). — I have erreneously listed this species as new to the fauna of Mongolia (VOJNITS 1975). VIIDALEPP (1975) gave a detailed description and figure of the genitalia; however, the correct date of the original description is 1885 and not 1892. ad 40. Ematurga atomaria krassnojarseensis FUCHS, 1901 (Stett. e. Ztg., 62: 135). — VIIDALEPP (1975) saw no subspecifie differences between representatives of the European a,nd Asiatic populations. ad 43. Concilia mundataria uneinataria VOJNITS, 1975 (Ann. Hist.-nat. Mus. nat. Hung., 67: 199-201). — VIIDALEPP (1975) saw no subspecifie differences between representatives of the populations of Concilia ( = Aspilates) mundataria CRAMER, 1782. In my previous paper (VOJNITS 1975) I have put forward my respective inferences in detail. ad 44. Aspilates gilvarius minimus VOJNITS, 1975 (Ann. Hist.-nat. Mus. Nat. Hung., 67:201-202). — VIIDALEPP (1975) incorrctly identified the Mongolian populations as Aspilates gilvarius orie ntarius ALPHÉRAKY, 1882.In mypreceding paper (VOJNITS 1975),I have discussed in detail the systematics and nomenclature of the species. ad 45. Semiaspilates curvarius (EVERSMANN, 1852) (Bull. Soc. Moscou, p. 167). — The species in VIIDALEPP'S work (1975) is incorrectly listed as Aspilates curvaria Ev. On the basis of the configuration of the genitalia, the species belongs in the taxon Semiaspilates WEHRLI, 1953, elevated to generic rank (VOJNITS 1975). ad 46. Semiaspilates obscuratus WEHRLI, 1953 (In SEITZ, A.:DieGross-Schmetterlinge der Erde, Spanner, 1934-1954, Supplement ad IV: 678). — VIIDALEPP (1975) correctly stated that the nominate species obscuratus WEHRLI and ehvesi MUNROE, 1963, are synonymous, but this communication was preceded by another paper (VOJNITS 1975), thus VIIDALEPP'S action did not establish a new synonymy. He also failed to recognize that the species is assignable to the genus Semiaspilates WEHRLI, 1953. References ALBERTI, B. (1957): Eine kleine Lepidopteren-Ausbeute aus der Mongolischen Volksrepublik. — Mut. Dtsch. Ent. Ges., 16:5-6. ALBERTI, B. (19 71): Lepidopteren aus der Mongolischen Volksrepublik. —• Dtsch. Ent. Ztschr., 18: 361-376. ALPHÉRAKY, S. (1882): Lépidoptères du district de Kouldjá et des montagnes environnantes 111. — Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross., 17: 156-22 7. ALPHÉRAKY, S. (1892): Lépidoptères rapp >rtés par Mr. Fr. Grou-Grshmailo de l'Aise Centrale en 1889-1890. — Rom. Mám. Lep.,ü: 1-81. BARTEL, M. (1920): Lepidopteren des südlichen Urals. — D. Ent. Z. Iris. 15: 183-230. BREMER, O. (1804): Lepidopteren Oát-Siberiens, insbesondere des Amur-Landes. — Mem. Acad. Sei. St. Petersb., 8: 1-103. CHRISTOPH, H. (1882): Einige neue Schmetterlinge aus Russisch-Armenien. —Hor. Soc. Ent. Ross., 17: 104-122. DENIS, M. & SCHIFFERMÜLLER, L. (1775): Systematisches Verzeichniss der Schmetterlinge der vVienergegend. —• Vienna. (DJAKONOV, A. M.) /JbHKOHOB, A. M. (1926): K no3Haiuno (payira Geometridae MiuiyCHCHKoro ttpafl. — EwcesodnuK Foc My3en UM' Mapmbnnoea, 4: 1—78. * In VIIDALEPP'S work (1975), all sensu lato Gnophos species are listed without any further (subgeneric or generic) grouping, thus I do not concerning the related species.