Abstract
This paper deals with some problematic species in the subfamily Lithosiinae. Two new monospecific genera are proposed: Parafrasura gen. nov. and Palaeugoa gen. nov. The former presents the following autapomorphies: tegumen strong and large; uncus long and slightly claviform; typical scaphium-gnathos complex. The latter presents as autapomorphies the disposition of the bands of the wings pattern, and the male genitalia shape. Asura naumanni Kühne, 2005 is considered incertae sedis within Lithosiinae and Asura phaeosticta Kiriakoff, 1958 is transferred to Euproctis Hübner, [1819] (Lymantriidae) (comb. nov.).
Highlights
The present contribution aims at providing a solid base of systematic knowledge on African Lithosiinae, even if some new taxonomic acts have not been supported by a large number of examined specimens, due to the objective scarceness of African material in the collections
The fourth of them deals with a Lithosiinae species here transferred to the family Lymantriidae
The revisionary work on African Lithosiinae, and on the whole Arctiidae as well, is just in its early stage and it is normal that papers such as the present will formulate questions rather than find solutions
Summary
Some studies on Lithosiinae in the African fauna led to the review of the genus Tumicla Wallengren, 1860 (Durante 2008) and to the description of the genus Afrasura Durante, 2009 (Durante 2009).The examined material was constituted by species formerly included mainly in the genus Asura Walker, 1854 (Hampson 1900, 1914; Strand 1922; Seitz 1943; Vári et al 2002; Kemal & Koçak 2007), which is at the present limited to the Oriental and Australian regions (Common 1990; Edwards 1996; Holloway 2001; Durante 2009). In the course of the survey, several specimens could not be assigned to the genera Tumicla, Afrasura and Asura, being clearly different in genitalic morphology, though similar in external appearance. The present contribution aims at providing a solid base of systematic knowledge on African Lithosiinae, even if some new taxonomic acts have not been supported by a large number of examined specimens, due to the objective scarceness of African material in the collections. Some recent revisionary studies of the Noctuoidea (Fibiger & Lafontaine 2005; Lafontaine & Fibiger 2006; Mitchell et al 2006; Zahiri et al 2010) proposed several nomenclatural changes at suprageneric level, a consensus view will probably still take some time to emerge Until such time, this paper follows a conservative nomenclature leaving the rank of family to the Arctiidae; see Conner (2009) for more extensive remarks
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
