Cabares Godman & Salvin, 1894

Cabares Godman & Salvin, 1894 View in CoL is a junior objective synonym of Systasea Butler, 1877 , which is a junior subjective synonym of Autochton Hübner, 1823

The genus Lintneria W. H. Edwards & Butler, 1877 was proposed in a publication by Edwards, who provided a description of this genus that mentions two species ( Papilio daunus Cramer, 1777 and Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 ) and cited verbatim a segment of a letter from A. G. Butler, who, in addition to these two species, listed two others and designated P. daunus to be the type species. Butler and Edwards misidentified P. daunus : they listed it from St. Domingo and described the outline of the hindwing as “angulated” (rounded in P. daunus ). The only species from Hispaniola (referred to as “St. in Lintneria ) is Autochton potrillo (Lucas, 1857) ( type locality in Cuba). Calhoun (2007) reached the same conclusion. To secure the applicability of the description by Edwards & Butler and ensure the stability of nomenclature that may be threatened by the uncertain identity of P. daunus , a nomen dubium, we fix (under Article 70.3.2 of the ICZN Code) the type species of Lintneria as Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 (the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification), misidentified as Papilio daunus Cramer, 1777 (the name previously cited as the type species) in the original description of Lintneria by W. H. Edwards and Butler in Edwards (1877a).

Lintneria W. H. Edwards & Butler, 1877 ( type species Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 ) is a junior homonym of Lintneria Butler, 1876 ( Sphingidae ). A new replacement name, Systasea , was proposed by Butler and published by Edwards (1877b) as “Mr. Butler proposes the name Systasea for the genus of Hesperidae [sic!] spoken of, which therefore should stand Systasea Butl ” (Edwards 1877b). Although this work was authored by Edwards, using Article 50.1.1 of the ICZN Code, we determine that the sole author of the replacement name Systasea is Butler because “it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name … and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication” (ICZN 1999), as quoted above. The name was published before 1931. Therefore, an indication (Art. 12.2.3: “the proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name”) is sufficient for “satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication.”

Because this is a replacement name, according to Art. 67.8, the type species of Systasea is the same as of Lintneria , which is Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 . Because Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 is also the type species of Cabares Godman & Salvin, 1894 , according to Art. 61.3.3, Cabares Godman & Salvin, 1894 is a junior objective synonym of Systasea Butler, 1877 . And because Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 is currently attributed to the nominate subgenus of Autochton Hübner, 1823 , Systasea Butler, 1877 is a junior subjective synonym of Autochton .

Being a junior synonym, the name Systasea cannot be used as valid for the three species currently placed in this genus: Leucochitonea pulverulenta R. Felder, 1869 ( type locality in Mexico: Veracruz), Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 ( type locality in USA: Arizona), and Systasea microsticta Dyar, 1923 ( type locality in Mexico: Guerrero). Moreover, these three species are not monophyletic with the type species of Systasea . To maintain the traditional usage of Systasea , we have considered referring the matter to ICZN so that the type species of Systasea is reassigned as H. zampa . However, previously, the Commission has not favored reassignment of the type species even for the genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823 ( type species Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787 , not Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 ) (ICZN 2010), probably the most widely used name of an insect. Therefore, we opted for a more straightforward solution within our means to ensure the preservation, albeit phonetic, of this name.

Systasia Grishin, new genus http://zoobank.org/ 68FC6FF0-2CDB-479F-BD98-ED1BC6D17C5A

Type species. Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 View in CoL .

Definition. Genomic analysis of Pyrgini Burmeister, 1878 reveals that a phylogenetic lineage consisting of two known species ( Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 View in CoL and Leucochitonea pulverulenta R. Felder, 1869 View in CoL ) is confidently placed in the clade with Diaeus Godman & Salvin, 1895 View in CoL ( type species Leucochitonea lacaena Hewitson, 1869 View in CoL ) and Zobera Freeman, 1970 View in CoL ( type species Zobera albopunctata Freeman, 1970 View in CoL ), and is sister to Onenses Godman & Salvin, 1895 View in CoL ( type species Leucochitonea hyalophora R. Felder, 1869 View in CoL ) in the Z chromosome tree ( Fig. 36b). This lineage is genetically differentiated from its closest relatives at the genus level ( Fig. 36): e.g., O. hyalophora COI View in CoL barcode differs by 11.2% (74 bp) from H. zampa View in CoL and by 10.5% (69 bp) from L. pulverulenta View in CoL . For comparison, the human ( Homo sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 View in CoL ) and chimp ( Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775)) COI View in CoL barcode difference is 9.6% (63 bp). As discussed above, the genus-group name Systasea Butler, 1877 View in CoL ( type species Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 View in CoL ) traditionally applied to H. zampa View in CoL and L. pulverulenta View in CoL cannot be used for them because they are not monophyletic with the type species of Systasea View in CoL and even belong to different subfamilies (Mielke 2005; Li et al. 2019). Therefore, because no other available genus name applies to the lineage with H. zampa View in CoL and L. pulverulenta View in CoL , it represents a new genus. This new genus keys to E. 56 in Evans (1953) and differs from its relatives by a combination of the following characters: apiculus is blunt; forewing apex is not truncate and the inner margin is concave, forewing is not excavate along the margin in cell CuA 2 -1A+2A and hindwing in cell Sc+R 1 -RS; the hindwing outer margin is irregular; males have a costal fold, hindtibial tuft, and thoracic pouch; uncus is narrower in dorsal view than in relatives, undivided; harpe is terminally rounded or expanded, not narrowing; costa of valva is armed with a terminally rounded curved process not shorter and only slightly narrower than harpe at its base. In DNA, a combination of the following characters is diagnostic in the nuclear genome: aly276665.11.11:T52C, aly4456.14.6:T109G, aly 1041.8.11: C48T, aly3824.3.5:A192G, aly 2250.3.1:A152G, and COI barcode: A214T, T364A, A421T, 547C, T581C.

Etymology. For the stability of nomenclature, the name is chosen to be as close as conceivable to Systasea . The name is a feminine noun in the nominative singular.

Species included. The type species (i.e., Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 ) and Leucochitonea pulverulenta R. Felder, 1869 .

Parent taxon. Tribe Pyrgini Burmeister, 1878 .

http://zoobank.org/ 74B2BC62-F359-4945-91DA-B3D93FC9F53D

Type species. Systasea microsticta Dyar, 1923 View in CoL .

Definition. Genomic phylogeny of Pyrgini Burmeister, 1878 reveals that Systasea microsticta Dyar, 1923 View in CoL ( type locality in Mexico: Guerrero) is not monophyletic with Hesperia zampa W. H. Edwards, 1876 View in CoL ( type locality in USA: Arizona) and Leucochitonea pulverulenta R. Felder, 1869 View in CoL ( type locality Mexico: Veracruz, Orizaba) formerly in Systasea Butler, 1877 View in CoL ( type species Thanaos potrillo Lucas, 1857 View in CoL ) and placed in Systasia gen. nov. above, but forms a lineage in deeper radiation of the tribe not closely related to any other single genus ( Fig. 36). Therefore, this lineage represents a new genus that keys to E. 56.3 in Evans (1953) and differs from its relatives by a combination of the following characters: apiculus is blunt; forewing apex is not truncate and inner margin is concave, forewing is not excavate along the margin in cell CuA2-1A+2A but the hindwing margin is concave in cell Sc+R 1 -RS; hindwing outer margin is irregular but less so than in Systasia gen. nov.; males have costal fold, hindtibial tuft, and thoracic pouch; the 1 st segment of palpi is narrower and the 3 rd segment is directed somewhat outwards, tilted stronger than in relatives; forewing discal band is relatively straight, composed of several smaller semihyaline pale spots including two separate spots anteriad of the discal cell (better seen ventrally), forewing is prominently paler by the inner margin beneath ( Fig. 37); uncus is divided and broader than long, arms are slightly longer than wide; sacculus is massively expanded into a spiculose process about the same size as harpe; harpe is terminally narrower, rounded, inwardly curved towards the other harpe; process from the ampulla is curved ventrad and more than twice as long as harpe, terminally semi-rhomboidal ( Fig. 36d). In DNA, a combination of the following characters is diagnostic in the nuclear genome: aly 2163.3.10: G144A, aly216.30.8:T72A, aly5715.3.24:G78A, aly214.16.5:C43T, aly 1859.1.1:C826A, and COI barcode: A34T, G38A, T133C, A190T, A334G.

Etymology. The name is formed from the original genus name of the type species by shortening it and adding a negating a- (i.e., not Systasea ). The name is a feminine noun in the nominative singular.

Species included. Only the type species (i.e., Systasea microsticta Dyar, 1923 ).

Parent taxon. Tribe Pyrgini Burmeister, 1878 .