Euthycera turkestanica Elberg, 1968

Euthycera turkestanica Elberg, 1968

Figs 15 View Fig , 16 View Figs 16–17 , 18–20 View Figs 18–20

Coremacera turkestanica Elberg, 1968 View in CoL Euthycera turkestanica Elberg, 1968 , comb. nov.

Material: Holotype: ♂, Uzbekistan, Tashkent , Kaunchi [41 ° 1N, 69.1 ° E], 24.07.1925 ( ZIN). GoogleMaps

The holotype is in a good condition although right mid and hind legs absent. The male genitalia are in a vial with glycerol.

Descriptive notes. Head with small brown spots around anterior orbital seta and small indistinct orbito-antennal spot. Face with round dark median spot ( Fig. 15 View Fig ). Postpedicel triangular, with 7–9 very fine and short setulae at apex. The comparison of these setulae with the same apical setulae in C. catenata is shown in Figs 16–17 View Figs 16–17 . Scutum evenly light-brown without distinct vittae. Chaetotaxy: dc 0+2, ac 0+1. Wing. Costal margin (= cell R 2+3) mostly pale with 6–7 brown spots; the rest of wing with irregular reticulate pattern ( Fig. 15 View Fig ).

Discussion. The difference between Coremacera and Euthycera is only in the presence of setulae at the apex of the postpedicel in the former genus. To which genus belongs specimen with 7-8 weak and short setulae at apex of postpedicel, instead of 15-20 relatively strong and long setulae (compare Figs 16 and 17 View Figs 16–17 )? I suppose it belongs to Euthycera for the following reasons. (1) The male sternite 6 and surstyli are identical to those of E. hrabei Rozkosny, 1969 , which also inhabits Central Asia ( Figs 19 and 20 View Figs 18–20 ). (2) Among 15 specimens identified as E. hrabei in ZMUM and ZIN collections there are female and male collected in Kazakhstan (Almaty, 43.218 ° N, 76.934 ° E, 18.06.2008, D. Gavryushin). The female has a typical for Euthycera bare postpedicel, while the male has the same weak and short setulae as the holotype of E. turkestanica but even more sparse: 1 on the left antenna and 3 on the right one. (3) The wing pattern of turkestanica is more similar to that of Euthycera than to any Coremacera .

So, the diagnosis of genus Coremacera should be clarified as follows:

— Postpedicel with strong (as in Fig. 17 View Figs 16–17 ) setulae at apex.................... Coremacera — Postpedicel bare or rarely with few minute setulae (as in Fig. 16 View Figs 16–17 ) at apex... Euthycera

Thus, Coremacera turkestanica Elberg, 1968 is Euthycera turkestanica comb. nov. and Euthycera turkestanica Elberg, 1968 = E. hrabei Rozkosny, 1969 syn. nov.

Apart from the fact that there is only one diagnostic character to differ Coremacera and Euthycera and this single character may be doubtful, there are several parallelisms between Coremacera , Euthycera and Dictyacium . (1) C. catenata and E. stictica share facial spot and have very similar male genitalia. (2) C. catenata and E. flavostriata have the same wing pattern. (3) C. amoena shares with E. chaerophylli similar wing pattern and large body size. (4) Nearctic Dictyacium ambiguum (see: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/42206280) looks as C. marginata with elongated antenna and without setulae at apex of postpedicel.

I believe that molecular data will show, that Coremacera is at most a subgenus of Euthycera .