List of Entomological Publications (Autobibliographie)


BACK Publications

Paukstadt, U. & Paukstadt, L. H. (2000): Das Antheraea yunnanensis-Problem (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). - Galathea - Berichte des Kreises Nürnberger Entomologen eV (Nürnberg), Suppl. 8: pp. 22-25.

Summary: Contribution on the confusion on Antheraea (Antheraea) yunnanensis Chu & Wang, 1993 (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). - This contribution particularly deals with the identity and taxonomic status of the Chinese oak silkmoth Antheraea (Antheraea) platessa yunnanensis Chu & Wang, 1993 (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae: Saturniinae). Presently the situation on the status and even the identity of yunnanensis is considered somehow confuse due to some considerable errors in the original description (cf. Chu & Wang 1993), as well as in a further publication by Chu & Wang (1996). Chu & Wang (1993, 1996) erroneously placed the genus Antheraea Hübner, 1819 ("1816") into the subfamily Attacinae Bouvier [recte Blanchard, 1840] of the family Saturniidae Boisduval, 1837 ("1834"). The name yunnanensis was originally described by Chu & Wang (1993) in subspecific rank of the Chinese oak silkmoth Antheraea (A.) pernyi (Guérin-Méneville, 1855), which is a taxon of the pernyi-group (sensu Nässig 1991) of the subgenus Antheraea Hübner, 1819 ("1816"). The description of yunnanensis clearly based on a single male specimen only. Chu & Wang (1993) remarked that yunnanensis is a local subspecies of A. (A.) pernyi, which is only known from Yunnan thus far. The male holotype (holotype by original designation) was sorry not figured in the original description, only line-drawings of the male genitalia structures (actually of yunnanensis?) are present. The genitalia apparatus of A. (A.) pernyi yunnanensis, which was figured in the original description (the separate aedeagus is sorry incomplete!) definitively neither belongs to a taxon of the pernyi-group (sensu Nässig 1991) nor to any taxon of the frithi-subgroup (sensu Nässig 1991) of the mylitta/frithi-group (sensu U. Paukstadt, Brosch & L. H. Paukstadt 1999), but clearly to a taxon of the subgenus Antheraeopsis Wood-Mason, 1886. Presently it is unknown to us whether the genitalia of yunnanensis was accidently exchanged during the dissection, or the figures of the genitalia structures were accidently interchanged by the author, the publisher, or the printer with figures of another taxon described as new species in the same work. Chu & Wang (1996) subsequently figured the holotype of A. (A.) pernyi yunnanensis in color (pl. XII fig. 4), but the illustrated specimen clearly neither belongs to a taxon of the pernyi-group (sensu Nässig 1991) nor to a taxon of the subgenus Antheraeopsis as the illustrated genitalia structures did. The illustration of the genitalia structures in Chu & Wang (1996) was copied from Chu & Wang (1993). The specimen figured in Chu & Wang (1996) definitively represents a taxon of the platessa-complex of the frithi-subgroup of the mylitta/frithi-group. Paukstadt, Paukstadt & Naumann (2000) recently combined the name yunnanensis in subspecific rank with A. (A.) platessa Rothschild, 1903. In the same contribution the authors lowered yunnanensis into synonymy of A. (A.) platessa ornata Bouvier, 1928, which was originally described from Tonkin (northern Vietnam). The authors remarked that the status of ornata needs further investigation, and that further studies might reveal that the name ornata represents a junior synonym of platessa. The taxonomic acts by Paukstadt et al. (2000) were mainly based on the condition that the color illustration of yunnanensis by Chu & Wang (1996) factually represents the holotype of yunnanensis. No further investigations on the real identity of yunnanensis were carried out by the authors. Presently we are in doubt on the identity of yunnanensis and particulary on the accuracy of the illustration of the male holotype by Chu & Wang (1996). Due to the present taxonomic confusion, which is mainly based on the still uncertain identity of yunnanensis Chu & Wang, 1993 further studies are urgently required. Presently yunnanensis might represents a taxon of the pernyi-group of the subgenus Antheraea, or a taxon of the subgenus Antheraeopsis, or a taxon of the frithi-subgroup of the mylitta/frithi-group of the subgenus Antheraea. A final conclusion on the status of yunnanensis should be proposed not earlier than the real identity is determined. Presently yunnanensis is considered being a species of doubtful identity needing further investigation (species inquirenda).