List of Entomological Publications (Autobibliographie)
Ulrich PAUKSTADT & Laela Hayati PAUKSTADT


(Summary)


BACK Publications


Paukstadt, L. H. & Paukstadt, U. (2003): Zur Morphologie von Antheraea (Loepantheraea) rosieri (Toxopeus, 1940) comb. nov. (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). - Beiträge zur Kenntnis der wilden Seidenspinner (Wilhelmshaven), 1 (1): pp. 23-39; 15 b/w-figs.


On the morphology of Antheraea (Loepantheraea) rosieri (TOXOPEUS, 1940) comb. nov. (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). -

Summary: The 1st instar larva and some morphological characters of Antheraea (Loepantheraea) rosieri (TOXOPEUS, 1940) comb. nov., (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) from the island of Borneo are described and figured. The rearing of rosieri failed because larvae not accepted any of the offered standard alternative foodplants of other taxa of the genus Antheraea HÜBNER, 1819 ("1816"). The first instar larva was found being morphological distinct from other larvae of the genus Antheraea. The taxon rosieri is combined with the subgenus Loepantheraea TOXOPEUS, 1940 due to the unusual morphology of the egg, the 1t larval instar and the adults, which were found distinct to those of other taxa of the genus Antheraea.

The taxon rosieri was described by Toxopeus (1940) as a member of the new genus Loepantheraea TOXOPEUS, 1940 due to the diverging feet morphology of rosieri, its double eye-spot with the discocellular vein running between these spots, and its straightened outer margins. Several authors followed Toxopeus (e.g. Lampe 1984, Allen 1981, Barlow 1982, Holloway in Barlow 1982, and Lampe 1985), but some of the authors remarked that Loepantheraea would be better placed in subgeneric rank to the genus Antheraea. Allen (1981) noted that rosieri is closely related to other taxa in the genus Antheraea and dissection shows that the male genitalia are very similar to other taxa in the genus Antheraea. Further investigation may justify the placing of the genus Loepantheraea as a subgenus of Antheraea. Barlow (1982) combined rosieri with the genus Loepantheraea but referred to the taxonomic appendix by Holloway, where the author noted that the genus Loepantheraea may prove to be a subgenus of Antheraea when the range of morphology of taxa in Antheraea has been more fully investigated. Holloway (1982) suggested to place rosieri in the genus Antheraea while Holloway in Barlow (1982) noted: "when the range of morphology of Antheraea species has been more fully investigated there may prove to be justification for placing Loepantheraea as a subgenus of it". Holloway (1987) was the first who subordinated Loepantheraea ROEPKE [recte TOXOPEUS, 1940] as a junior synonym to Antheraea. Nässig (1991) transfered rosieri into the subgenus Antheraea of the nominotypical genus. He remarked that the taxon rosieri should not be excluded from the genus Antheraea in spite of its unusual wing pattern. Finally the taxon rosieri was placed into the rosieri-group or Loepantheraea-group by Nässig (1991). The collective group-name Loepantheraea-group is considered being published in synonymy to the invalid collective group-name rosieri-group. Nässig, Lampe & Kager (1996) noted that rosieri cannot be considered anything but a true Antheraea, despite the wing ocelli and leg morphology. The authors noted that conserving the generic name Loepantheraea, thereby automatically implying a sistergroup-relationship with Antheraea, seems to be an unsatisfactory arrangement and would also not fit into the phylogenetic ideas suggested by them.

With the exception of Toxopeus (1940) thus far obviously no author has fully investigated the morphology of rosieri, but taxonomic changes were made or proposed due to similarity in the male genitalia structures with other taxa of the genus Antheraea. As far as presently known an unique morphology in the first instar larva, the male genitalia structures, and the adult wing venation is present in rosieri, which is not shared by any other taxon of the genus Antheraea. Though we did not find any differences in the leg structures of the male adults of rosieri and other taxa of the frithi-subgroup (sensu Nässig 1991), we decided to replace the taxon rosieri to Loepantheraea treated as a subgenus of Antheraea to indicate its obvious close relationship to this genus. Further studies and a confirmation are considered needed after the preimaginal instars are fully known. Thus far nothing is known on the biology and ecology of this species.

Description of the immature stages: Ovum extraordinary small. Chorionic sculpturing conspicuous, covered with plenty of tiny aerophyle openings surrounded with dome-like protuberances, of which are about fife till seven openings placed around each irregular shaped depression in the chorion. Dome-like protuberances at aerophyle openings are not common in taxa of the frithi-subgroup.
1st instar larva ground coloration of integument including ventrolaterally and ventrally, as well as all scoli and bristles whitish or pale yellowish, prothorax bright whitish. Meso- and metathorax, as well as 1st till 9th abdominal segments with each two black rings just before or behind the transversal rows of scoli extend laterally towards the subspiracular scoli. Scoli mostly in 6 or 8 longitudinal rows, scoli supported by fleshy extensions of body. Prothorax with 6 scoli, subspiracular scoli prominent with a higher number of bristles. Meso- and metathorax with each 6 scoli, ventrolaterally each side a wart present with one ore more bristles. 1st till 8th abdominal segment with each 6 scoli and the 9th abdominal segment with 4 scoli of which the lowermost fleshy extensions of body supporting scoli are particularly prominent. Substigmal scoli of thoracic and abdominal segments prominent with a higher number of bristles. Posterior end of the anal plate with two prominent scoli. Dorsal and subdorsal scoli mostly with 5 bristles and a single centered longer bristle. All subspiracular scoli extraordinary prolonged with a higher number of larger bristles. Different from all other 1st instar larvae known in Antheraea, the fleshy extensions of body supporting dorsal scoli on the 8th abdominal segment are neither fused nor even approached.
Description of the adults: relatively small specimens comparatively to other taxa of the genus Antheraea. Forewing length of males 43-53 mm, average 50.5 mm (n = 33) and of females 58-64 mm, average 60.7 mm (n = 3). In the male forewing are 3 or 4 fenestrae or spots present of which 2 or 3 are with a hyaline center. In the females forewing are 6 or 7 fenestrae present, of which are 5 or 6 with a hyaline center.
Male genitalia morphology: relatively small genitalia clearly distinct to those of other taxa in the genus Antheraea and not generally of the typical shape of taxa of the subgenus Antheraea as stated by Nässig et al. (1996). Uncus bilobe as in taxa of the helferi-group, juxta dorsally with a conspicuous spine-like long process facing distally, which is not present in any other taxon of the genus Antheraea. Labides consist of two parts, of which the base of the process is without and the top of the process is with long strong bristles, which are not present in any other taxon of the genus Antheraea. The labides are morphological close to those of taxa of the subgenus Antheraeopsis and the pernyi-group but in rosieri the top of the labides likely cannot be folded in medioventrally as in taxa of the subgenus Antheraeopsis.