ArticlePDF Available

Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens): Clarification of its identity and larval biology, and differentiation from a similar species, Anacampsis consonella (Zeller), revised status (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) was described from individuals reared from larvae collected in fruit racemes of staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina (Anacardiaceae). Rearing efforts in central Illinois, however, have established that A. rhoifructella actually feeds on leaves of Viburnum prunifolium (Caprifoliaceae). Furthermore, a second Anacampsis species also feeds on leaves of V. prunifolium. The second species is very similar to A. rhoifructella in external appearance of the adult and in larval feeding mode but is readily differentiated on basis of larval appearance, phenology, and genital morphology of both genders. Examination of type specimens of Gelechia consonella Zeller, G. quadrimaculella Chambers, and G. ochreocostella Chambers, all of which were previously designated as junior synonyms of A. rhoifructella, revealed that the valid name of the second species is Anacampsis consonella (Zeller, 1873), revised status; G. ochreocostella and G. quadrimaculella are assigned as junior synonyms of A. consonella. We provide descriptions and illustrations of characters that reliably differentiate A. rhoifructella from A. consonella. We conclude that Clemens' record of A. rhoifructella feeding on fruits of sumac is erroneous, and we offer an explanation of how the error probably occurred.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted by J.F. Landry: 21 Mar. 2014; published: 8 May 2014
ZOOTAXA
ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
ISSN
1175-5334
(online edition)
Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press
Zootaxa 3794 (4): 545
555
www.mapress.com
/
zootaxa
/
Article
545
http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3794.4.5
http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:DE6AB76C-5FB2-46FD-AEDA-E1C35C33BB42
Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens): clarification of its identity and larval
biology, and differentiation from a similar species, Anacampsis consonella
(Zeller), revised status (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)
TERRY L. HARRISON
1,2
& MAY R. BERENBAUM
1
1
Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, 320 Morrill Hall, 505 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
E-mail: (TLH) tharriso@illinois.edu; (MRB) maybe@illinois.edu
2
Corresponding author
Abstract
Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) was described from individuals reared from larvae col-
lected in fruit racemes of staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina (Anacardiaceae). Rearing efforts in central Illinois, however, have
established that A. rhoifructella actually feeds on leaves of Viburnum prunifolium (Caprifoliaceae). Furthermore, a second
Anacampsis species also feeds on leaves of V. prunifolium. The second species is very similar to A. rhoifructella in external
appearance of the adult and in larval feeding mode but is readily differentiated on basis of larval appearance, phenology,
and genital morphology of both genders. Examination of type specimens of Gelechia consonella Zeller, G. quadrimacule-
lla Chambers, and G. ochreocostella Chambers, all of which were previously designated as junior synonyms of A. rhoi-
fructella, revealed that the valid name of the second species is Anacampsis consonella (Zeller, 1873), revised status; G.
ochreocostella and G. quadrimaculella are assigned as junior synonyms of A. consonella. We provide descriptions and
illustrations of characters that reliably differentiate A. rhoifructella from A. consonella. We conclude that Clemens’ record
of A. rhoifructella feeding on fruits of sumac is erroneous, and we offer an explanation of how the error probably occurred.
Key words: Microlepidoptera, taxonomy, larval host plants, Anacardiaceae, Rhus, Caprifoliaceae, Viburnum, innocuella,
populella, forest insects
Introduction
The genus Anacampsis Curtis (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) is developed to varying degrees in the world’s faunal
regions, apparently reaching its greatest diversity in the Neotropics, where over 150 species are attributed to the
genus (Lee 2009). In North America north of Mexico, Anacampsis comprises 23 described species (Lee et al.
2009). North American species for which life histories are known are reported to feed as larvae on Anacardiaceae,
Asteraceae, Betulaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Combretaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Fabaceae, Fagaceae, Rosaceae, Salicaceae,
and Sapindaceae, and most species are recorded as being monophagous or oligophagous within a single plant genus
(Robinson et al. 2009).
Clemens (1861) described Gelechia rhoifructella from moths that were reared from larvae collected among
overwintered fruits of staghorn sumac, Rhus typhina Linnaeus (Anacardiaceae) in April and early May, in
Pennsylvania, USA. Subsequently, Zeller (1873) described Gelechia consonella, and Chambers described G.
quadrimaculella (1874) and G. ochreocostella (1878a). The latter three species were described from type
specimens that were collected as adults (G. consonella from Missouri, the remaining two species from Texas), and
all were later evaluated as junior synonyms of A. rhoifructella (Walsingham 1882; Dyar 1902; Busck 1903).
Chambers (1875) also inadvertently described a different species of gelechiid from Colorado as G.
quadrimaculella, which became a junior homonym of the moth described by that name in 1874. Upon becoming
aware of the problem, Chambers (1878b) emended the name of the Colorado moth to pravinominella. It is a
member of the genus Filatima Busck and therefore does not figure into the present paper.
HARRISON & BERENBAUM
546
·
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
Since the late nineteenth century, there have been reports of A. rhoifructella being reared from Viburnum
Linnaeus (Caprifoliaceae) (Walsingham 1882; Kearfott 1904; Smith 1910; Tucker 1911; Forbes 1923; Wild 1942;
Schaffner 1959; Prentice 1965). Literature reports of sumac as the host plant of A. rhoifructella (e.g., Felt 1906)
appear to be mere repetitions of the information in Clemens’ original description, and in fact, we know of no
confirmed independent report of this species being reared from sumac since Clemens’ original record. Prentice
(1965) reported four individuals of A. rhoifructella (one being reared from sumac and three from viburnum), but
the characterization of the larva indicated that it was a solitary leaf roller, not a fruit feeder as per Clemens’
description; therefore, this record is clouded in confusion. Our observations indicate that in central Illinois the larva
of A. rhoifructella feeds only on leaves of Viburnum prunifolium Linnaeus. Furthermore, our rearing efforts
produced a second, “late” V. prunifolium-feeding species of Anacampsis that is very similar to A. rhoifructella in
larval feeding mode and external appearance of the adult. This second species, however, is markedly different from
A. rhoifructella in phenology, larval coloration, and genital morphology in both genders. Of these early versus late
Anacampsis species reared from V. prunifolium in Illinois, Clemens’(1861) larval description and account of the
phenology of A. rhoifructella indicate that it is the early species of the two, and the holotype of A. rhoifructella
confirms this identification. Examination of type specimens of the three species that have been synonymized under
A. rhoifructella revealed that the valid name of the “late” species is A. consonella (Zeller).
In this paper we clarify the identities and life histories of A. rhoifructella and A. consonella, revise the status of
the latter as a valid species, assign the synonymies of the names G. quadrimaculella and G. ochreocostella, provide
descriptions and illustrations to allow reliable differentiation of the two species, and suggest an explanation of the
circumstances under which A. rhoifructella was mistakenly assessed as a sumac-feeding species.
Material and methods
In the “Material examined” section, all specimens other than primary types were reared from larvae collected on
Viburnum prunifolium by T. Harrison in Illinois. All localities are in Coles County unless otherwise specified, and
numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of individuals. Voucher specimens are deposited in the collection of the
Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Larvae were reared individually in 40 x 45 mm plastic cups,
which were placed inside 17 x 20 cm self-sealing plastic bags. Adult moths were spread and double-mounted on
foam staging blocks; associated larval and pupal exuviae were preserved in a gelatin capsule attached to the main
pin. Terminology pertaining to genital morphology and larval chaetotaxy is from Klots (1970) and Stehr et al.
(1987), respectively. The procedure of Clarke (1941) was used for genitalic dissection, except that the ventral part
of the genitalia (comprising the valvae and vinculum) was separated from the tegumen for study and illustration as
per the recommendations of Pitkin (1984). Genital preparations were stored in glycerin in genitalia vials affixed to
the main pin of the associated specimen. Photographs were taken with a Canon EOS Digital Rebel camera attached
to a Bausch and Lomb dissecting microscope or an Olympus compound microscope. Illustrations of intact male
genitalia and of the ventral aspect of the valva/vinculum complex were prepared from a stack of three photographs,
with Combine ZM (A. Hadley, free software). Adobe
®
Photoshop
®
CS2 v.9.0.2 was used for line drawings. Wings
were measured with a Vernier caliper; genitalic structures were measured with an ocular micrometer. Scientific
names of plants are from the PLANTS database (USDA, NRCS 2009) and The Plant List (2010). Abbreviations of
institutions are: MCZ (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA), ANSP (Academy
of Natural Sciences of Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA) and BMNH (The Natural History Museum, London,
UK).
Results
In addition to A. consonella, two names, G. quadrimaculella Chambers 1874 and G. ochreocostella Chambers
1878a, were historically evaluated as being junior synonyms of A. rhoifructella. Our examination of type
specimens of these two species has clarified their identities, as reflected in the synonymies presented below.
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
·
547
ANACAMPSIS (GELECHII DAE)
Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens, 1861), redescription
Gelechia rhoifructella Clemens 1861: 163
Diagnosis. In A. rhoifructella (Fig. 1A), the forewing from base to fascia appears pale brown with a few medium-
brown scales, and the medium-brown spots contrast markedly, whereas in A. consonella (Fig. 2A), this area of the
wing is heavily suffused with medium-brown scales so that it appears darker with the spots less contrasting, as was
mentioned by Chambers (1874) in the original description of Gelechia quadrimaculella. This difference, however,
is slight and subtle, and it is readily obliterated in specimens with even moderate wear. Sight identification
therefore should be based only on comparison of fully scaled specimens with pristine, accurately determined moths
of both species. Characters that provide reliable differentiation between the two species include phenology,
coloration of the mature larva, and differences in morphology of the vinculum, valva, gnathos and phallus in the
male, and in the 8
th
abdominal tergite, base of ductus bursae and surface texture of corpus bursae in the female
(Table 1).
TABLE 1. Characters differentiating Anacampsis rhoifructella from A. consonella.
Adult (Fig. 1A). Head. Vertex, frons, and scaling on haustellum brown; labial palpus brown laterally, pale
yellowish brown medially; antenna brown dorsally, yellowish brown ventrally, flagellum of alternating brown and
yellow flagellomeres.
Thorax. Brown dorsally, shining pale brown ventrally; forewing length, 7.2–8.4 mm (n=14). Ground color
light brown, with a few darker, medium-brown scales in basal two-thirds of wing; costal margin somewhat
contrastingly ochreous; four small blotches of brown, darker than the ground color, two lying on CuP fold at 0.20
and 0.45, two lying anterad of the fold at 0.48 and 0.60; a narrow ochreous fascia at 0.80, expanded into small
A. rhoifructella A. consonella
Life history/immatures
Phenology (central Illinois) Early (larva from 14 April to 7 May,
adult from 5 May to 24 May)
Late (larva from 13 May to 7 June, adult
from 30 May to 21 June)
Color of final-instar larva
(Figs. 1B, 2B)
Reddish brown with blackish head;
pinacula of most primary setae brown,
inconspicuous
Dull green with orange head; pinacula of
most primary setae black, conspicuous
Male genitalia
Vinculum
(Figs. 5A–C, 6A–C)
Asymmetrical, with broad ventral keel
on left margin, no keel on right margin; a
narrow independent keel running
diagonally between the two margins;
free anterior part in lateral aspect
appearing as a loop
Symmetrical, with narrow ventral keel
on left margin identical to that on right
margin; no independent keel between
margins; free anterior part in lateral
aspect appearing as a single slightly
curved line
Valva
(Figs. 5B–C, 6B–C)
Relatively broad, width 0.13X to 0.24X
length
Relatively narrow, width 0.06X to 0.15X
length
Gnathos
(Figs. 5D–E, 6D–E)
Medial region relatively small, pointed;
subapical sharp projection visible in
lateral aspect
Medial region relatively large, rounded;
no subapical projection visible in lateral
aspect
Phallus (Figs. 5F–G, 6F–G) Relatively narrow, apex acuminate;
strongly doubly curved in ventral aspect
Relatively broad, apex truncate; straight
in ventral aspect
Female genitalia
Posterior margin, tergum 8
(Figs. 7B–C, 8B–C)
Narrowest laterally, broadening
gradually to widest point at midline
A narrow transverse band laterally,
broadening abruptly into large rounded
medial projection
Ductus bursae
(Figs. 7D, 8D)
Not enlarged at base Bulbously enlarged at base
Corpus bursae
(Figs. 7E–F, 8E–F)
Wall smooth; microtrichia relatively
long and sparsely distributed
Wall foveolate; microtrichia relatively
short and densely distributed
HARRISON & BERENBAUM
548
·
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
blotch at costa; at least four small, dark-brown spots on apical margin; fringe nearly concolorous with wing, with
five alternating bands of pale and dark; hindwing uniformly brown, slightly darker than forewing; fringe slightly
paler than wing, with three alternating bands of pale and dark along outer margin; legs brown laterally, coxae and
medial surfaces of free segments pale shining brown; apices of basal four tarsomeres yellowish brown; dorsal
margin of hind tibia with brushlike row of long yellow hairlike scales.
FIGURES 1–2. 1, Anacampsis rhoifructella, and 2, A. consonella. A, adults, reared from Viburnum prunifolium, Illinois; B,
larvae; C, larval feeding evidence; A rhoifructella on Viburnum prunifolium, Illinois, A. consonella on V. nudum var.
crassinoides, Wisconsin. Photos in Figs. 2B and 2C by Ilona Loser; used with permission.
Abdomen. Brown dorsally, pale shining brown ventrally. Male genitalia (Fig.5). Valva a straight simple lobe,
broadening slightly from base to apex; vinculum asymmetrical, anterior part appearing as a loop in lateral aspect;
left margin straight, with broad ventral keel in posterior half; right margin curved laterad at midlength, without
ventral keel; a narrow diagonal keel from midlength of right margin to posterior end of left margin; juxta with
posterior margin medially emarginate, slightly asymmetrical; gnathos a transverse band with small, pointed medial
lobe bearing thornlike subapical projection; phallus narrow with acuminate apex, doubly curved in ventral view
(Fig. 5G). Female genitalia (Fig. 7). Papillae anales membranous, with setae of varying length; posterior apophysis
slender, rodlike; anterior apophysis broadly triangular at base, narrowing to become rodlike; posterior margin of
tergite 8 narrowest laterally, broadening gradually to widest point at midline; ostium bursae in transverse
invagination, indistinct, with dense scales on either side; ductus bursae slender, not enlarged at base; corpus bursae
ovate, smooth, sparsely covered with long microtrichia except in area of signum; signum a transverse band with
one large and two or more small, thornlike projections on posterior margin; ductus seminalis originating near
signum at anterior margin of unspined area of corpus; appendix bursae small, membranous.
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
·
549
ANACAMPSIS (GELECHII DAE)
FIGURE 3. Larva, Anacampsis rhoifructella. A, head, frontal and left-lateral aspects; B, right mandible, medial aspect; C-H,
chaetotaxy of body segments, left-lateral aspect, all at same scale; C, T1; D, T2-3; E, A1, 2, 7, 8, showing differences in the
association of seta SD1 with the spiracle; F, A3-6; G, A9; H, A10.
HARRISON & BERENBAUM
550
·
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
FIGURE 4. Pupa, Anacampsis rhoifructella. A, dorsal and ventral aspects; B, short, dense, hairlike vestiture of entire surface
of pupa; C, texture of cuticle, as seen at junctions of abdominal segments 4/5, 5/6, and 6/7.
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
·
551
ANACAMPSIS (GELECHII DAE)
FIGURES 5–6. Male genitalia. 5, Anacampsis rhoifructella; 6, Anacampsis consonella. Each structure shown at same scale in
Figure 6 as in Figure 5; A, B, D and F, left lateral aspect; C, E and G, ventral aspect. A, intact genitalia; B and C, valvae,
vinculum and juxta (left valva removed in lateral aspect of A. rhoifructella); D and E, tegumen, gnathos and socii; F and G,
phallus.
Final-instar larva (Fig. 1B). Length, approximately 11 mm. Color reddish brown; head and prothoracic shield
blackish, the latter sometimes with anterior margin yellowish brown; pinacula of most primary setae large, but
brown and inconspicuous. Chaetotaxy as shown in Fig. 3.
Pupa (Fig. 4). Length, 8.5 mm; densely covered with short seta-like projections; texture at junctions of
abdominal segments IV/V, V/VI, and VI/VII as shown; cremaster with eight hooklike cuticular projections at the
caudal extremity.
Larval damage (Fig. 1C). Leaf of host plant sewn together at lateral margins to form a distinctive pouchlike
shelter within which the larva feeds.
Phenology. Univoltine, overwintering as adult. Larvae have been collected in central Illinois from 14 April to
7 May, with adult emergence occurring from 5 May to 24 May. This phenology averages about three weeks earlier
than A. consonella.
Food plants. Not known to have been reared from Rhus typhina since Clemens’ (1861) original record. We
observed that in no-choice feeding trials, penultimate and ultimate-instar larvae of A. rhoifructella refused
overwintered sumac fruits. Apparently monophagous on Viburnum prunifolium in central Illinois. Schaffner (1959)
reported rearing A. rhoifructella from Viburnum dentatum Linnaeus in Massachusetts. This certainly seems
possible; however, in Illinois, we have not observed either of the Anacampsis species to feed on V. dentatum, even
at a site where it occurs in physical contact with V. prunifolium on which Anacampsis larvae of both species are
seen to feed. In Canada, A. rhoifructella has been reared from Viburnum lentago Linnaeus in Ontario and from
Viburnum sp. in Ontario and Nova Scotia (J.-F. Landry, in litt.). Occasional literature references (e.g., Coquillett
1883) to A. rhoifructella feeding on Populus Linnaeus (Salicaceae) refer to the native Anacampsis innocuella
(Zeller) and/or a similar, Palearctic species, Anacampsis populella (Clerck), which has been recorded in North
HARRISON & BERENBAUM
552
·
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
America (Hodges 1983). Both of these Salicaceae-feeding species are highly variable in appearance, and
individuals of indistinctly marked phenotypes can somewhat resemble A. rhoifructella, but they usually can be
differentiated in that, in A. innocuella and A. populella, the forewing area that is distal to the pale transverse line at
0.75 the length of the wing is partially or entirely darker than the general ground color, whereas in the two
Viburnum-feeding species this area is concolorous with or paler than the rest of the wing.
FIGURES 7–8. Female genitalia. 7, Anacampsis rhoifructella; 8, Anacampsis consonella. Each structure at same scale in Fig.
8 as in Fig. 7; B–E at same scale. A, overview, ventral aspect; B and C, segments 7 and 8, left lateral and dorsal aspects,
respectively, showing posterior margin of tergite 8; D, base of ductus bursae (sternite 7 reflected caudad; scale patches removed
in A. consonella); E, corpus bursae, left lateral aspect; F, detail of texture and microtrichia of wall of corpus bursae; G, signum.
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
·
553
ANACAMPSIS (GELECHII DAE)
Distribution. Type locality, Pennsylvania; known with certainty from Illinois; also confirmed from Quebec,
Nova Scotia and Ontario (J.-F. Landry, in litt.). In published literature, “Anacampsis rhoifructella” has been
reported from New Jersey (Smith 1910), Massachusetts (Schaffner 1959), New York, Missouri, California
(Walsingham 1882), and Texas (Walsingham 1882, Tucker 1911), and from the Canadian provinces of New
Brunswick, Manitoba (Prentice 1965) and Quebec (Handfield et al. 1997). The confusion of this species with the
sympatric A. consonella renders it impossible to assess which of the two species is represented in any of these
records without evaluation of the relevant specimens (if they have been preserved) on basis of the characters given
in the present paper.
Material examined. Pennsylvania: holotype (ANSP type #7345); abdomen, most of right antennal flagellum,
and right wings missing; otherwise in good condition; labels: (1) Type Gelechia rhoifructella B. Clemens 7345; (2)
Gelechia (Anacampsis) rhoifructella Type! Clemens AB 1902. Texas: syntype of Gelechia consonella (MCZ type
#MCZT_2982); abdomen and metathorax missing, otherwise in good condition; labels: (1) “Dallas Tex. Boll”; (2)
“Zeller”; (3) “Gelechia/ (Tachyptilia) consonella Z.”; (4) “Type 2982”; (5) “Anacampsis rhoifructella Clem
=consonella Zel. AB 1902”; (6) “Anacampsis rhoifructella (Clemens) Det. T. Harrison, 2013”; Illinois, reared on
Viburnum prunifolium: 7 miles south of Charleston: (2) 20-IV-1991, em. 5/12-V-1991; (1) 22-IV-1991, em. 10-V-
1991; (4) 1-V-1993, em. 18/19-V-1993; (2) 22-IV-1995, em. 9/12-V-1995; (1) 27-IV-2001, em. 11-V-2001;
Charleston Lake View Park: (2) 7-V-1995, em. 23/24-V-1995; (4) 26-IV-1997, em. 15/17-V-1997; 3 miles east of
Charleston: (7) 14-IV-2001, em. 7/12-V-2001.
Anacampsis consonella (Zeller, 1873), revised status and redescription
Gelechia consonella Zeller 1873: 251
Gelechia quadrimaculella Chambers 1874: 237, new synonymy
Gelechia ochreocostella Chambers 1878a: 91, new synonymy
Diagnosis. See comments under A. rhoifructella, regarding diagnosis based on external appearance of adults. Other
diagnostic characters that differentiate the two species are presented in Table 1.
Adult (Fig. 2A). External appearance as in A. rhoifructella, except for differences in forewing coloration as
noted in diagnosis of that species. Male genitalia (Fig. 6). Valva a straight simple lobe, broadening rather abruptly
near base, then nearly uniform in width to apex; vinculum symmetrical, anterior part forming a single slightly
curved line in lateral aspect, symmetrically V-shaped, left and right margins each with narrow ventral keel in
posterior half; juxta with rounded, symmetrical posterior margin; gnathos a transverse band with large, rounded
medial lobe; phallus broad with truncate apex, straight in ventral view (Fig. 6G). Female genitalia (Fig. 8). Papillae
anales membranous, with setae of varying length; posterior apophysis slender, rodlike; anterior apophysis broadly
triangular at base, narrowing to become rodlike; posterior margin of tergite 8 a narrow transverse band with large,
rounded independent medial lobe; ostium bursae in transverse invagination, indistinct, with dense scales on either
side; ductus bursae membranous, slender, bulbously enlarged at base; corpus bursae membranous, ovate, its surface
foveolate, densely covered with short microtrichia except in area of signum; signum a transverse band with one
large and two or more small thornlike projections on posterior margin; ductus seminalis originating near signum at
anterior margin of unspined area of corpus; appendix bursae small, membranous.
Final-instar larva (Fig. 2B). Length, 11 mm; color dull green; head orange brown; prothoracic shield blackish
brown, sometimes with anterior margin yellowish brown; pinacula of most primary setae black, large and
conspicuous. Chaetotaxy as in A. rhoifructella (Fig. 3).
Pupa. No consistent differences were found with that of A. rhoifructella (Fig. 4).
Larval damage (Fig. 2C). As described for A. rhoifructella.
Phenology. Univoltine, overwintering as adult. Larvae have been collected in central Illinois from 13 May to 7
June, with adult emergence occurring from 30 May to 21 June.
Food plants. Apparently monophagous on Viburnum prunifolium in central Illinois. Also reared by Ilona
Loser in Dane County, Wisconsin, from Viburnum nudum var. cassinoides (Linnaeus) Torrey & A. Gray. In
Ontario, Canada, A consonella has been reared from Viburnum lentago Linnaeus (J.-F. Landry, in litt.).
Distribution. Type locality, Missouri; known to occur in Texas, Illinois and Wisconsin; also, descriptions by
Kearfott (1904) and Wild (1942) of “rhoifructella” larvae collected on Viburnum in New Jersey and New York,
respectively, diagnose A. consonella. In Canada, A. consonella has been confirmed from Ontario and Quebec (J.-F.
Landry, in litt.).
HARRISON & BERENBAUM
554
·
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
Material examined. Missouri: lectotype of Gelechia consonella, BMNH specimen BMNH(E)#1055486;
abdomen missing, otherwise in good condition; labels: (1) “Gelechia (Tachyptilia) consonella Z. Missouri: Rly.
69”; (2) “TYPE”; (3) “Lectotypus m# Gelechia consonella Z. Select.: K. Sattler, 1961” (4) “241” (5) “‘Gel.
populellae proxima’ Z. Missouri Riley lit. 10/69” (6) “Zeller Coll. Walsingham Collection. 1910–247.” (7)
“LECTO-TYPE” (8) “Abdomen missing”; Texas: lectotype of Gelechia quadrimaculella, designated by R. W.
Hodges (Miller and Hodges 1990: 65): MCZ type #MCZT_1436; abdomen missing, otherwise in good condition;
label information given by Miller and Hodges (1990: 65). Type specimen of Gelechia ochreocostella (MCZ type
#MCZT_1455); specimen intact and in good condition; labels: (1) “Type 1455”; (2) “Tex.”; (3) [illegible ink run];
(4) “101”; (5) “ochreocostell[truncated] Chb”; (6) “Anacampsis consonella (Zeller) Det. T. Harrison, 2014”;
genitalia in glycerin in vial on separate pin beside specimen in tray; labels: (1) “Genitalia of type MCZT_1455
Gelechia ochreocostella Chambers Dissected T. Harrison, 2013”; (2) “Anacampsis consonella (Zeller) Det. T.
Harrison, 2014”; Illinois, reared on Viburnum prunifolium: Charleston Lake View Park: (1) 22-V-1991, em. 30-V-
1991; (2) 13-V-1991, em. 30-V/1-VI-1991; (2) 23-V-1992, em. 10/11-VI-1992; 7 miles south of Charleston: (1) 20-
V-1992, em. 14-VI-1992; Piatt County, Robert Allerton Park: (7) 7-VI-1997, em. 15/21-VI-1997.
Discussion
The pronounced trend in Anacampsis toward stringent specialization in larval host plant preference, and the
observed larval biologies of A. rhoifructella and A. consonella (including refusal of sumac fruits by A. rhoifructella
in feeding trials) compel us to doubt and attempt to explain Clemens’ record of A. rhoifructella larvae feeding on
sumac. Rhus typhina is a common plant that occurs in every state east of the Mississippi River except Florida
(USDA, NRCS 2009). A common tortricid moth, Paralobesia rhoifructana (Kearfott), feeds on the fruits of R.
typhina during the summer months, and its feeding activity leaves frass and silk among the host tissue. The sumac
fruit cluster and its P. rhoifructana-generated debris persist through winter and into the following spring, at which
time of year (“April or early May”) Clemens (1861) reported collecting larvae of A. rhiofructella from the fruits of
R. typhina. Clemens stated that the presence of larvae “is indicated by strings of ‘frass’ clinging to the exterior” [of
the fruit spike]. We suggest that this most likely was frass that was deposited by P. rhoifructana during the
preceding year, rather than by A. rhoifructella. Clemens also states that the larvae of A. rhoifructella “feed on the
crimson hairs and exterior envelope of the drupes, without however eating the drupes themselves.” It is not clear
whether this statement was based only on examination of damage on the fruits, or on actual observation of apparent
feeding activity by A. rhoifructella larvae. If the former, then it seems likely that the damage was that of P.
rhoifructana; if the latter, then the behavior might have been related to prepupation, rather than being actual
feeding activity. Based on our knowledge of the biology of A. rhoifructella, therefore, it appears evident that the
larvae collected by Clemens had migrated to the fruit cluster of a nearby sumac solely for the purpose of using it as
a pupation site, after they had finished feeding on leaves of the true host plant, viburnum.
Considering the similarities between A. rhoifructella and A. consonella in host plant preference, larval mode of
feeding, and external appearance of adults, it is perhaps tempting to hypothesize that the two are sister species
within Anacampsis. The resolution of this question, however, must await a phylogenetic analysis of the genus.
Acknowledgments
For the loan or imaging of type specimens of Anacampsis species treated in this paper, we thank Jason Weintraub,
ANSP, Dr. Philip Perkins, MCZ, and Kevin Tuck, BMNH. We are grateful to Ilona Loser for images of the larva
and larval feeding damage of Anacampsis consonella. We thank two reviewers for their helpful comments on the
manuscript, and we thank the Tyler Foundation for financial support of this work.
References
Busck, A. (1903) A revision of the American moths of the family Gelechiidae, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of
the United States National Museum, 25, 767–938.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.25-1304.767
Zootaxa 3794 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press
·
555
ANACAMPSIS (GELECHII DAE)
Chambers, V.T. (1874) Tineina from Texas. The Canadian Entomologist, 6, 229–249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4039/ent6229-12
Chambers, V.T. (1875) Tineina from Colorado. The Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science, 2, 289–305.
Chambers, V.T. (1878a) Descriptions of new tineina from Texas, and others from more northern localities. Bulletin of the
United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories, 4, 79–106.
Chambers, V.T. (1878b) Tineina. The Canadian Entomologist, 10, 50–54.
Clarke, J.F.G. (1941) The preparation of slides of the genitalia of Lepidoptera. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society,
36, 149–161.
Clemens, B. (1861) Contributions to American lepidopterology.—No. 4. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 1860, 156–174.
Coquillett, W.D. (1883) The leaf-rollers of Illinois. Papilio, 3, 97–103.
Dyar, H.G. (1902) A list of North American Lepidoptera and key to the literature on this order of insects. Bulletin of the United
States National Museum, 52, xix + 1–723.
Engel, H. (1909) A preliminary list of the Lepidoptera of western Pennsylvania collected in the vicinity of Pittsburgh. Annals of
the Carnegie Museum, 5, 27–136.
Felt, E.P. (1906) Insects affecting park and woodland trees. Vol. 2. New York State Museum Memoir, 8, 333–877.
Forbes, W.T.M. (1923) The Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. Cornell University Agricultural Station Memoir,
68, 1–729.
Handfield, L., Landry, J.-F., Landry, B. & Lafontaine, J.D. (1997) Liste des Lépidoptères du Québec et du Labrador. Fabreries,
Supplement 7, 1–155.
Hodges, R.W. (1983) Gelechioidea. In: Hodges, R.W., Dominick, T., Davis, D.R., Ferguson, D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Munroe,
E.G. & Powell, J.A. (Eds.), Check List of the Lepidoptera of America North of Mexico. E.W. Classey Ltd. and the Wedge
Entomological Research Foundation, London, pp. 11–25.
Kearfott, W.D. (1904) Micro-Lepidoptera—suggestions. Entomological News and Proceedings of the Entomological Section of
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 15, 165–169.
Klots, A.B. (1970) Lepidoptera. In: Tuxen, S.L. (Ed.), Taxonomist's Glossary of Genitalia in Insects, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard,
Copenhagen, pp. 115–130.
Lee, S. (2009) Gelechiidae Checklists. Mississippi State University, Mississippi Entomological Museum. Available from:
http://mississippientomologicalmuseum.org.msstate.edu/Researchtaxapages/Lepidoptera/Gelechiidaepages/Checklists.html
(accessed 19 September 2013)
Lee, S., Hodges, R.W. & Brown, R.L. (2009) Checklist of Gelechiidae (Lepidoptera) in America north of Mexico. Zootaxa,
2231, 1–39.
Miller, S.E. & Hodges, R.W. (1990) Primary types of microlepidoptera in the Museum of Comparative Zoology (with a
discursion on V.T. Chambers’ work). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 152, 45–87.
Pitkin, L. (1984) A technique for preparing complex male genitalia in microlepidoptera. Entomologist's Gazette, 37, 173–179.
Prentice, R.M. (1965) Microlepidoptera. Forest Lepidoptera of Canada, 4, 546–840.
Robinson, G.S., Ackery, P.R., Kitching, I.J., Beccaloni, G.W. & Hernández, L.M. (2009) HOSTS—A Database of the World's
Lepidopteran Hostplants. Natural History Museum, London, UK. Available from: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosts (accessed
19 September 2013)
Schaffner, J.V. Jr. (1959) Microlepidoptera and their parasites reared from field collections in the northeastern United States.
United States Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) Miscellaneous Publication, 767, 1–97.
Smith, J.B. (1910) Report of the insects of New Jersey, Order Lepidoptera. Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum,
1909, 407–578.
Stehr, F.W., Martinat, P.J., Davis, D.R., Wagner, D.L., Heppner, J.B., Brown, R.L., Toliver, M.E., Miller, J.Y., Downey, J.C.,
Harvey, D.J., McFarland, N., Neunzig, H.H., Godfrey, G.L., Habeck, D.H., Appleby, J.E., Jeffords, M., Donahue, J.P.,
Brown, J.B. & Frack, D.C. (1987) Order Lepidoptera. In: Stehr, F.W. (Ed.), Immature Insects. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, pp.
288–596.
The Plant List (2010) Version 1. Available from: http://www.theplantlist.org/ (accessed 23 September 2013)
Tucker, E.S. (1911) Random notes on entomological field work. The Canadian Entomologist, 43, 22–32.
USDA, NRCS (2009) The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA. Available from:
http://plants.usda.gov (accessed 23 September 2013)
Walsingham, L. (1882) Notes on Tineidae of North America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society and
Proceedings of the Entomological Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences, 10, 165–204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25076421
Wild, W. (1942) Descriptions of little-known microlepidoptera larvae of western New York. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of
Natural Sciences, 17, 52–53.
Zeller, P.C. (1873) Beiträge zur Kentniss der nordamericanischen Nachtfalter, besonders der Microlepidopteren.
Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanishen Gesellschaft in Wien, 23, 201–334.
... data 2021). But these unusual characters are not observed in the pupae of other gelechiid subfamilies (Mosher 1916;Patočka & Turčáni 2005;Adamski & Boega 2009;Adamski et al. 2010Adamski et al. , 2014Adamski et al. , 2018King & Montesinos 2012;Harrison & Berenbaum 2014;Hanife 2016;Zinzuvadiya et al. 2017). ...
Article
The taxonomy and biology of the immature stages of two gelechiid species of Thiotricha Meyrick, 1886, found in the southeastern part of the Sino-Japanese region is presented. Thiotricha lumnitzeriella Kyaw, Ueda & Hirowatari sp. nov., from islands in southwestern Japan is described. The larva of this species feeds as a portable case maker on Lumnitzera racemosa Willd. (Combretaceae). Thiotricha gemmulans Meyrick, 1931 originally described from India is newly recorded from Japan, mainland China, and Thailand. This species feeds as a portable case maker on Glochidion zeylanicum var. lanceolatum (Hayata) and G. zeylanicum var. zeylanicum (Gaertn.) A. Juss (Phyllanthaceae). Thiotricha acrophantis Meyrick, 1936 is newly synonymized with T. gemmulans. Images of the adults of Thiotricha lumnitzeriella sp. nov. and T. gemmulans including genitalia, and images and illustrations of the larval chaetotaxy and pupa for both species are provided. Larval feeding habits are described in detail.
Article
Full-text available
3 To whom correspondence should be sent Abstract A checklist of Gelechiidae in America north of Mexico is provided based on additions of new taxa and nomenclatorial changes in publications since 1978. This checklist includes the addition of 253 new species and 8 new genera, 30 species and 5 genera previously unrecorded from North America, 4 species inadvertently omitted in the previous checklist, and many nomenclatorial changes. Ymeldia Hodges, 1963 is transferred to Oecophoridae. The following new synonymies are established: Neoschema Povolny, 1967, n. syn. of Gnorimoschema Busck, 1900; Scrobipalpulopsis Povolný, 1987, n. syn. of Scrobipalpula Povolný; 1964, Tuta Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, rev. syn. of Phthorimaea Meyrick, 1902; Eupolella Fletcher, 1940, n. syn. of Dichomeris Hübner, (1818); Eupolis Meyrick, 1923, n. syn. of Dichomeris Hübner, (1818); Aristotelia nigrobasiella Clarke, 1932, n. syn. of Aristotelia isopelta Meyrick, 1929; Aristotelia intermediella (Chambers, 1879), n. syn. of Aristotelia pudibundella (Zeller, 1873); Gelechia brumella Clemens, 1864, n. syn. of Chionodes continuella (Zeller, 1839); Anacampsis bidiscomaculella (Chambers, 1874), rev. syn. of Anacampsis fullonella (Zeller, 1873); Aroga trachycosma (Meyrick, 1923), n. syn. of Aroga elaboratella (Braun, 1923); and Dichomeris caryaefoliella (Chambers, 1872), n. syn. of Dichomeris georgiella (Walker, 1866). The following new combinations are made: Monochroa pullusella (Chambers, 1874), n. comb., Monochroa robusta (Braun, 1921), n. comb., Gnorimoschema klotsi (Povolný, 1967), n. comb., Gnorimoschema powelli (Povolný, 1998a), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides chiquitella (Busck, 1910), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides chiquitelloides (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides elaborata (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides insularis (Powell & Povolný, 2001) n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides isolata (Povolný, 2000) n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides spinosa (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides totalis (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpuloides truncata (Povolný, 2000), n. comb., Scrobipalpula lutescella (Clarke, 1934), n. comb., Scrobipalpula lycii (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb., Scrobipalpula physaliella (Chambers, 1872), n. comb., and Scrobipalpa arenaceariella (Powell & Povolný, 2001), n. comb. New records for the Nearctic Region are given for Carpatolechia fugitivella (Zeller), Carpatolechia notatella (Hübner), Carpatolechia proximella (Hübner), and Altenia perspersella (Wocke). This checklist also provides the type localities of species based on examination of specimens and published references. Subfamilies have been divided into tribes, which has required rearrangement of genera. References that include new taxa or nomenclatorial changes since 1978 are provided.