Peronea expressa, Filipjev, 1931

10. expressa Filipjev, 1931 View in CoL ( Figs 12 View FIGURES 3–20 , 44 View FIGURES 39–53 , 74 View FIGURES 67–78 )

Peronea expressa Filipjev, 1931 . Annuaire du Musée Zoologique de l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS 1931 (1930): 517. Plate XXIV, fig. 3; Plate XXXI, fig. 2. TL: Russia, “Jakovlevka, Lazarevka-Weg” (Far East, Yakovlevka).

Types. Holotype ♂: “Яковлевка Спас. у. Уссур. кр. 1. V.926 ДьЯконов Филипьев [ Yakovlevka , Ussuri Region, 1.V.1926 Djakonov, Filipjev]”, “ЛаЗаревскаЯ дорога 1. V.926 [Lazarevka Road, 1.V.1926]”, “ Pe. expressa Fil. ♂ N. Filipjev det.”, “praep. micr. № 988”, gold circle, “Holotypus Peronea expressa Fil. ”, “ ZISP INS _LEP_0001614”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24206 Acleris expressa (Filipjev, 1931) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”.

Paratype ♀: “Виноградовка Уссур. кр. 13. V.929 ДьЯконов Филип. [ Vinogradovka Ussuri Region 13. V.929 Djakonov, Filipjev]”, “ Peronea expressa Fil. ♀ Filipjev det.”, “praep. micr. 988 Ac. expressa Fil. ♀ Uss.”, “Allotypus Peronea expressa Fil. ”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24207 Acleris expressa (Filipjev, 1931) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024” .

Present status. Acleris expressa (Filipjev, 1931) .

Comments. Razowski (1984) illustrated the genitalia of both male and female type specimens in Microlepidoptera Palaearctica. He accurately listed the labels of the male holotype in the text; however, the captions for the genitalia images were incorrect. Specifically , he noted that the male genitalia depicted on Plate 63, originating from genitalia preparation 988, belonged to a specimen labeled “Okr.[estnosti]Wladiwostoka, p.[ol]-ostr.[ow] De-Fris, 27.VI.1957 ” [Outskirts of Vladivostok] from the ZISP collection. However, genitalia preparation 988 contains only the male and female genitalia of the type specimens, none of which originated from the outskirts of Vladivostok. It is now impossible to determine whether a type specimen is illustrated here .

Additionally, in the caption for the female genitalia drawing on Plate 98, the labels of the male holotype listed in the text were erroneously provided. These errors were repeated in Razowski (2008), with an additional mistake: the caption for the female genitalia states “holotype, Russia, Amur District,” whereas both Yakovlevka and Vinogradovka are located in Primorsky Krai (= Russian Far East), which is near the Amur Region but not identical to it. In Gilligan et al. (2018), the type locality was incorrectly listed as “Japan,” and the holotype sex was marked as “unknown.”