Synonyms and other taxonomic changes
Pococera callipeplella (Hulst, 1888)
Tetralopha callipeplella Hulst, 1888
Phylogenetic Sequence # 800126
Numbers
There are twenty-six named species of Pococera in America north of Mexico.
Identification
Quoted from Hulst, 1888:
"Tetralopha callipeplella, n. sp.
Expands 16 mm. Palp, head, antennae, and thorax uneven fuscus gray; forewings gray, rather strongly overlaid with blackish, more especially on the basal field; extreme base and posterior portion of basal field reddish; basal crossline white, slightly waved, distinct, edged on both sides with distinct, fine black lines; discal spots black; outer line gray, straight from costa, then rectangular outward, then rounding forming a deep sinus shorter than usual, then angulate and slightly bent to inner margin; veins on inner an outer fields rather darker than ground cover; marginal line black; hind wings light fuscous darker on the outer margins. -- Texas"
Genitalia:
Range
New Mexico, Texas, Mexico
(1)(2)Remarks
Ann Hendrickson 11/5/2021:
I want to recognize James McDermott for first identifying this species for me. He had read the Hulst paper and went back to his collection to find two specimens, one from a visit to Camp Wood and one from Kerr Co. He found my specimens on BOLD, and told me about it, but I did not have the confidence to make an identification until now. I have now sent multiple specimens to BOLD as well as having dissected many. They are quite common at Camp Wood.
I am quite aware of the controversy within this Genus, but I think this placement is within the bounds of the currently accepted species identifications. I fully expect the Genus to be revised. I have read the Alma Solis 1993 Epipaschiinae paper as it applies to the Pococera Genus. It only gives one dissection as a guide.
The MPG referenced BOLD Pococera callipeplella specimens do not appear to have a BIN number but are quite impressive as to Museum identification. I have never seen a Museum identification that listed a dissection slide let alone a wing venation slide. I think those dissections must be pretty priceless!
However, there is scanty DNA evidence to be had. Two the specimens from Brewster County Texas reference dissection slides, however only one has DNA and that specimen only has a 304 coi count. When I used the NIH Blasting software mine matched the Brewster County specimen with DNA 100%. I have no way to check my dissections against theirs, but maybe someone else can, so I am posting my best dissection results.
All of my specimens BLAST as either 100% match or only one letter of deviation within the 658 points, so they are quite uniform.
I had this happen before with Fundella ignobilis where my DNA was complete and the accepted US specimens had poor DNA. In that case, with the help of Alma Solis, the BINS were combined.
I am hoping for that in this case.
