Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:32:32.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NEW GENUS OF A HOMONEUROUS MOTH AND THE DESCRIPTION OF A NEW SPECIES (LEPIDOPTERA: NEOPSEUSTIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Akira Mutuura
Akira Mutuura
Affiliation:
Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A new genus, Archepiolus, and a new species, schmidi, belonging to the family Neopseustidae and suborder Dacnonypha are described in this paper. This genus and species occupy a very primitive position in the Neopseustidae. The venation shows the most primitive features in all the Dacnonypha; also the male genitalia show a more primitive condition than that of Neopseustis meyricki Hering. Some aspects of the male genitalia are close to Mnesarchaea paracorma Meyrick of the Mnesarchaeidae.The discovery of this moth provides new morphological evidence on the problem of the ancestors of the Dacnonypha and of all Lepidoptera.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 103 , Issue 8 , August 1971 , pp. 1129 - 1136
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acker, T. S. 1960. The comparative morphology of the male terminalia of Neuroptera (Insecta). Microentomology 24(2) : 21–83.Google Scholar
Busck, A. and Böving, A.. 1914. On Mnemonica auricyanea Walsingham. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 16: 151–163.Google Scholar
Busck, A. 1931: On the female genitalia of the Microlepidoptera and their importance in the classification and determination of these moths. Bull. Brooklyn eni. Soc. 28(5): 199–216.Google Scholar
Chapman, T. A. 1916: Micropteryx entitled to ordinal rank; Order Zeugloptera. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond.: 310–314.Google Scholar
Comstock, T. H. 1918: The wings of insects. Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Davis, D. R. 1969: A review of the genus Acanthopteroctetes with description of a new species (Eriocraniidae). J. Lepidopterist's Soc. 23(3): 138–147.Google Scholar
Dumbleton, L. J. 1952: A new genus of Seed-infesting Micropterygid Moths. Pacif. Sci. 6(1): 17–29.Google Scholar
Eyer, J. R. 1924: The comparative morphology of the male genitalia of the primitive Lepidoptera. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 17: 275–328.Google Scholar
Forbes, W. 1923: The Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring States. Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Hering, M. 1925: Ueber die Gattung Neopseustis Meyrick. Berlin Zool. Mus. Mitt. 12: 143–147.Google Scholar
Issiki, S. 1931: On the morphology and systematics of the Micropterygidae of Japan and Formosa. Proc. zool. Soc. London 1931(3): 999–1039.Google Scholar
Issiki, S. 1933: Morphological studies on the Panorpidae of Japan and adjoining countries and comparison with American and European forms. Jap. J. Zool. 4(4): 315–416.Google Scholar
Issiki, S. 1953: Micropterigoidae of Japan. Bull. Naniwa Univ. (B) 3: 133–140.Google Scholar
Janse, A. J. T. 1942: The moths of South Africa 4, 1, 817 pp.Google Scholar
Kristensen, N. P. 1967: Erection of a new family in the Lepidopterous suborder Dacnonypha. Ent. Meddr 35: 341–345.Google Scholar
Kristensen, N. P. 1968: The skeletal anatomy of the heads of adult Mnesarchaeidae and Neopseustidae (Lep., Dacnonypha). Ent. Meddr 36: 137–151.Google Scholar
Meyrick, E. 1909: Indian Micro-Lepidoptera. J. Bomb. Nut. Hist. Soc. 19: 435–437.Google Scholar
Meyrick, E. 1912: Micropterygidae, Genera Insectorum CXXXII, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Meyrick, E. 1923: Exot. Microlep., III. pp. 404–405.Google Scholar
Mutuura, A. 1956: On the homology of the body areas in the thorax and abdomen and new system of the setae on the Lepidopterous larvae. Bull. Univ. Osak. Pref. (B) 6: 93–122.Google Scholar
Philpott, A. 1923: The genitalia of Sabatinca and allied genera. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1923: 347–366.Google Scholar
Philpott, A. 1927: The genitalia of the Mnesarchaeidae. Trans. Proc. New Zealand Inst., pp. 710–715.Google Scholar
Schmid, F. 1958: Trichoptères de Ceylan. Arch. Hydrobiol. 54. 112: 1–173.Google Scholar
Spuler, A. 1910: Die Schmetterlinge Europas II, pp. 482–484.Google Scholar
Stekolńikov, A. A. 1967: Functional morphology of the copulatory apparatus in the primitive Lepidoptera and general evolutionary trends in the genitalia of the Lepidoptera. Ent. Obozr. 1967, 3: 400–409.Google Scholar
Tillyard, R. J. 1926: Insects of Australia and New Zealand. Angus & Robertson, Sydney.Google Scholar
Viette, P. 1947: Revision du Catalogue des Lépidoptères Homoneures. Première note. Revue fr. Ent. 14.1.24.Google Scholar