Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution of Lophocampa atrimaculata: Insights from Online Databases.
Lophocampa atrimaculata was first described by Hampson, 1901 as Halisidota atrimaculata (https://archive.org/details/catalogueoflepid03brituoft/page/166/mode/1up?view=theater) along with a drawing (https://archive.org/details/catalogueoflepid13brit/page/n197/mode/2up?view=theater). The BOLDSystems website has images of museum specimens of this species from Brazil and Costa Rica (https://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Taxbrowser_Taxonpage?taxid=381556). Another website with available images of L. atrimaculata is the fieldguide.ai (https://leps.fieldguide.ai/figures?category=59baf45f929d3d10ea8f33b5), with the only available location being the Brazilian state of São Paulo.
The species is characterized by an ocher coloration; black dots on the vertex of the head, patagia, tegula, tibia, tarsus, and forewings. The most similar species with sympatric distribution is Lophocampa modesta. L. atrimaculata has a greater number and more well-defined dots on the thorax, with one pair on the collar, one pair on the patagia, two pairs on the tegula, and two centralized dots, whereas L. modesta has only one centralized dot and a well-defined pair on the tegula, the others are absent or blurred. The forewing of L. modesta has three large black spots, on the costa in the antemedial region, on the discal cell, and near the outer margin between veins M2 and M3. In addition to these, L. atrimaculata also has a spot near the anal angle and another in the antemedial area of the posterior margin. The spot on the discal cell of L. atrimaculata does not merge with the spots on the costa.
I searched the Inaturalist website for photographs corresponding to the species Lophocampa atrimaculata. Photographs of adults identified at least in the subfamily Arctiinae in the countries of South America were selected, except for the Andean countries Ecuador and Chile and the northernmost countries.
I found 12 photographs that matched the species. Specimens were found in the Brazilian states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná, São Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro.
Despite the original description of the species documenting its presence in Peru and Bolivia, I did not find any specimens in these countries or nearby locations. Both countries have a large database of images on the site, and therefore I believe that an identification error may have occurred in the original description, which seems to have been based on the specimen from Rio de Janeiro and a similar species occurring in Peru and Bolivia, perhaps L. modesta. Therefore, I believe it would be important to locate and analyze the individuals that originated the species description. The individuals from Costa Rica also appear to be a misidentification. The same identifier also published specimens of L. modesta in the region, which is similar but different. These individuals also deserve further study of the genitalia and genetic comparison to those found in Brazil. I believe that the individuals from Brazil are those that truly belong to this species, as they are more similar to both the description and the images provided by Hampson and later authors.
Comments
Add a Comment