Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Home » Forums » Taxonomy Proposals

Bringing some microleps up to date

I noticed the other day that Powell & Opler (1) use Exaeretia instead of Depressariodes, as well as using Depressariidae instead of Depressariinae. I asked Terry Harrison about this and he referred me to this paper, which I'm proposing to use to bring the higher taxonomy of Gelechioidea up to date:

Heikkilä, M., Mutanen, M., Kekkonen, M. and Kaila, L. 2013. Morphology reinforces proposed molecular phylogenetic affinities: a revised classification for Gelechioidea (Lepidoptera). Cladistics 1-27. (abstract)

The changes I see include elevating Blastobasinae, Depressariinae, Momphinae, Scythrididae, and Stathmopoda to family level; Coelopoeta also gets put in a new family.

In some related investigating, I noticed that there has been some family/subfamily-level reshuffling of Yponomeutoidea, and I found this paper*, as well as this paper**,
which appear to be entirely in agreement with each other (e.g. Argyresthiidae, Attevidae, and Praydidae are elevated to families; Acrolepiidae becomes Acrolepiinae within Glyphipterigidae).

* van Nieukerken et al. 2011. Order Lepidoptera Linnaeus, 1758. In: Zhang, Z.-Q. (Ed.) Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classification and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 212–221.

** Sohn et al. 2013. A Molecular Phylogeny for Yponomeutoidea (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Ditrysia) and Its Implications for Classification, Biogeography and the Evolution of Host Plant Use. PLoS One. 8(1): e55066.

Does anyone see a reason to object to any of these changes? I went ahead and changed Depressariodes to Exaeretia and Argyresthiinae to Argyresthiidae, but I'll wait a bit for feedback on the higher level changes.
Contributed by Charley Eiseman on 17 March, 2014 - 4:55pm
Last updated 17 March, 2014 - 7:19pm

Argyresthia photos in a couple of places
ahh this explains it. I just found a number of Argyresthia sp. at the Yponomeutidae family level here when I think they should be in the Argyresthiidae.
… Scott Gilmore, 7 May, 2014 - 8:29pm

Gelechioidea
The system put forth in the Heikkilä et al. 2013 paper cited above should be adopted here.
… Terry Harrison, 26 March, 2014 - 8:15pm

 
Done (I think)
Let me know if you notice anything I missed.
Do you see any reason to hold off on making the changes to Yponomeutoidea (creating Attevidae and Praydidae; moving Acrolepiidae to Acrolepiinae within Glyphipterigidae)?
… Charley Eiseman, 27 March, 2014 - 8:24am

 
No
No reason not to do this. Thanks for taking this on.
… Terry Harrison, 28 March, 2014 - 11:04am

 
Glad to do it
I think everything is up to date now. I moved Cycloplasis and Idioglossa to temporary holding places until it can be determined what their proper family placement is (and superfamily, in the case of Cycloplasis). Interesting that two moths that feed on the same grass species should be so taxonomically problematic.
… Charley Eiseman, 28 March, 2014 - 4:10pm

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Plant Pathology, Entomology and Microbiology at Iowa State University logo