Taxonomic revision and zoogeographical patterns of the species of Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892 (Geometridae, Ennominae)

Abstract

The genus Gnopharmia Staudinger, 1892 is revised, based on more than 2000 specimens from the entire area ofdistribution and study of type material of all described taxa, as far asmap available. Seven species and three subspeciesare confirmed as valid for the genus. All important morphological characters have been studied and compared, includingmale and female genitalia. In addition, preliminary results of DNA-Barcoding were used to reassess our taxonomicdecisions, based on morphological studies. Type specimens and their labels are illustrated and additional specimens,demonstrating the variability of certain species, are also figured. Male genitalia of all valid species are figured and SEMphotos of the aedeagus are illustrated. Further important structures, the so-called ‘octavals’ on the male pre-genitalabdomen, are also figured. Female genitalia revealed a high similarity between species, combined with a considerablevariability, and were unsuitable for characterisation of species. Female genitalia of three species are figured to exemplifythis situation. As a result of the morphological and genetic studies, 12 out of the 21 described species and subspecies aresynonymised or transferred to the closely related genus Neognopharmia Wehrli, 1953. In addition, G. colchidariacocandaria (Erschoff, 1874) is revived as a valid species, G. sinesefida Wehrli, 1941 is downgraded to a subspecies of G.colchidaria Lederer, 1870. Five new records for the fauna of the following countries are presented: G. colchidariaobjectaria: new for Pakistan; G. irakensis: new for Turkey and Pakistan; G. kasrunensis: new for Oman and G. sarobiana: new for Pakistan. Distribution maps and an identification key are given for all species.

Integration of cytochromecoxidase I barcodes and geometric morphometrics to delimit species in the genusGnopharmia(Lepidoptera: Geometridae, Ennominae)

“…Sequences are also available in GenBank (for accession numbers see Table S1). (Rajaei Sh et al, 2012). The distribution of Gnopharmia irakensis is not shown, as it occurs sympatrically with other species in most areas.…”

“…wing pattern) are subject to strong infraspecific variability and plasticity, and discrete characters of genitalia are limited. In a recent taxonomic revision, a large data set (> 2000 specimens and around 900 genitalia preparations including type series of all taxa) was studied with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and light microscopy (Rajaei Sh, Stüning & Trusch, 2012). Based on this morphological study, ten out of 19 taxa of the genus were synonymized and an updated checklist of the genus, currently comprising nine valid taxa in seven species, was provided as follows:…”

“…For example, the populations of G. rubraria from west and central Turkey are highly variable in wing colour and genitalia in comparison with specimens from east Turkey, Syria, and Israel. A second question concerns three morphs (or so-called subspecies; Rajaei Sh et al, 2012) of G. colchidaria that show clear differences in their genitalia. Although Rajaei Sh et al (2012) considered the variation in populations of G. rubraria to be intraspecific clines within the species and defined the three morphs of G. colchidaria as subspecies, further tests are in order.…”

“…A second question concerns three morphs (or so-called subspecies; Rajaei Sh et al, 2012) of G. colchidaria that show clear differences in their genitalia. Although Rajaei Sh et al (2012) considered the variation in populations of G. rubraria to be intraspecific clines within the species and defined the three morphs of G. colchidaria as subspecies, further tests are in order. We tested the delimitation of these taxa by using molecular and morphometric methods.…”

“…The aim of this study was to delimit the species of the genus Gnopharmia based on (1) DNA barcodes, employing distance clustering and parsimony network analyses, and (2) assessment of aedeagus characters based on eight landmarks analysed with principal component analyses (PCAs) and canonical variates analysis (CVA). All results are compared with earlier taxonomic classifications (Rajaei Sh et al, 2012).…”