Clarification of the identity of Homona salaconis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).

Abstract

In our analysis of the moth genus Homona in New Guinea (Hulcr et al. 2007), we had one species that we could not clearly identify that we called “species near salaconis.” The New Guinea specimens differ somewhat in genitalic morphology from specimens from the Philippines (the type locality of salaconis) and DNA data were not available at the time. Through Wolfram Mey, we have subsequently obtained specimens from the Philippines, and obtained Cytochrome Oxidase I (“DNA barcode”) sequences from two specimens (Genbank {type:entrez-nucleotide-range,attrs:{text:GU440204-GU440205,start_term:GU440204,end_term:GU440205,start_term_id:288548541,end_term_id:288548543}}GU440204-GU440205). The two Philippines sequences differ 0.15% from each other, while the Philippines sequences differ from our original New Guinea sequences (Genbank EF070825-070836) by 3.30-4.28% (using Neighbor Joining with the Kimura 2 parameter as implemented by Ratnasingham and Hebert, 2007). Based on the morphological and DNA criteria discussed in Hulcr et al. (2007), the Philippines and New Guinea populations should be considered separate species. The Philippines population keeps the name Homona salaconis, which was well illustrated by Diakonoff (1968, as Archips salaconis). The name Homona auriga (Durrant, 1915) is available for the New Guinea population, which we propose here as a resurrected taxonomic status. We have examined the female holotype from Indonesian New Guinea in the Natural History Museum, London (BMNH Microlepidoptera slide 7854) and it matches our specimens from Papua New Guinea. Homona auriga was previously considered a synonym of Homona salaconis (Brown, 2005). The identities of other populations formerly identified as Homona salaconis outside of the Philippines and New Guinea should also be reviewed (such as those mentioned by Brown 2005 from Sumatra and Sulawesi), but no material suitable for DNA study is available to us.