NEOHIPPARCHINI

NEOHIPPARCHINI

Inoue (1961) established Neohipparchus , into which he placed three species from Prout’s section C of Hipparchus . He placed the genus into a new tribe, Neohipparchini, separating it from Geometrini . Species of Chloroglyphica were placed in section D of Hipparchus ( Prout, 1920 –41).

Hausmann (1996) synonymized Neohipparchini with Geometrini and stated that the ansa of the tympanal organ in Neohipparchus and Chlororithra shares a similar structure with that of Tanaorhinus . Holloway (1996) treated Neohipparchini (as Neohipparchiti) as a separate tribe, mentioning that Neohipparchus shares similar venation and facies with Geometrini . Han & Xue (2011a) placed both Neohipparchus and Chloroglyphica in Geometrini , without placing Chlororithra in any known tribe.

Our results support Neohipparchus + Chloroglyphica + Chlororithra comprising Neohipparchini, whereas a close relationship between Neohipparchini and Geometrini is not supported. Although the two species of Chlororithra are externally different from Neohipparchus and Chloroglyphica , considering the similar ansa structure mentioned by Hausmann, and that Chlororithra shares the presence of both uncus and socii with some species of Neohipparchus , it is better to put Chlororithra in Neohipparchini.

Hausmann (1996) implied a possible homology between Neohipparchus and Iotaphora based on the presence of a stout external spine on the aedeagus. Members of Iotaphora are characterized by short radial lines outside the postmedial line on both the fore- and hindwings. The male genitalia of Iotaphora are also similar to those of Chlororithra , as they possess a similarly developed uncus and socii. Hausmann (1996) placed this genus in Geometrini together with Chlororithra . Beljaev (2016) put Iotaphora in Pseudoterpnini . Han & Xue (2011a) did not place Iotaphora into any known tribe. In this analysis, a close relationship between Iotaphora and Neohipparchus is not supported, and the position of Iotaphora is not resolved.