Identification, Images, & Information
For Insects, Spiders & Their Kin
For the United States & Canada
Clickable Guide
Moths Butterflies Flies Caterpillars Flies Dragonflies Flies Mantids Cockroaches Bees and Wasps Walkingsticks Earwigs Ants Termites Hoppers and Kin Hoppers and Kin Beetles True Bugs Fleas Grasshoppers and Kin Ticks Spiders Scorpions Centipedes Millipedes

Upcoming Events

BugGuide is a National Moth Week Partner. How to add your National Moth Week 2021 photos. July 17-25.

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

National Moth Week 2020 photos of insects and people.

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 BugGuide Gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Discussion, insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Photos of insects and people from the 2015 gathering in Wisconsin, July 10-12

Photos of insects and people from the 2014 gathering in Virginia, June 4-7.

Photos of insects and people from the 2013 gathering in Arizona, July 25-28

Previous events

"Cagiva" cephalanthana

Mark Dreiling has requested (here) a guide page for this image:

The problem is, as John F. Carr noted, placement of this species is all over the map.

•The basionym is Phalonia cephalanthana Heinrich 1921
•Nomina Nearctica lists it as Phtheochroa cephalanthana
•All-Leps has it as Phalonia cephalanthana in its checklist, but the Barcode of Life Taxonomy Browser has an entry for Cagiva cephalanthana. An Excel™ version of the All Leps North American checklist database that I downloaded a few years ago has it as Phtheochroa cephalanthana
•LepIndex has it as Aethes cephalanthana, and says Phalonia is a junior subjective synonym of Aethes
•MPG lists it as [3818] 3849 [Cagiva] cephalanthana
•Markku Savela's funet site lists it as "?Aethes cephalanthana (Heinrich, 1921)", and cites the name from the Hodges checklist as "Phalonia cephalanthana " and adds "#3818 (incertae sedis)"
•The Online World Catalogue of the Tortricidae at places it in "Cochylini New Genus 2"

Cagiva Pogue, 1990 (in Pogue & Mickevich, Cladistics 6:322) seems to be the most recent genus, but also is listed as a nomen nudum in the few online references that even mention it.

We started out with Nomina Nearctica as our taxonomical reference, then changed to All-Leps, and now seem to be using MPG. MPG doesn't seem to be sure about the genus placement, and other sites seem semi-randomly distributed among other choices- sometimes two or more per site!

My semi-educated impression is that there are problems with all the generic placements, and that the correct genus for it has yet to be validly published. Which leaves us with the obvious question: We need to create a species page, but where do we put it?

Calling it "Incertae sedis" or "Unplaced" would be no doubt the most accurate, but everything is designed around species names in the form of Linnaean binomials. "Cagiva cephalanthana" seems to be the most up-to-date choice, but it also seems to be invalid.


This is now resolved. Brown (2019) (1) formally published the name Cagiva.

Cochylini New Genus 2
There is a newer checklist for the tribe Cochylini, Metzler & Brown, 2014 (1). These authors will also author the next MONA Fascicle for Tortricdae. In an email exchange with John Brown, I was asked to use this checklist for BG. I was also told that for Cochylini as well as the next MONA Fascicle would be based on this checklist. It may be a few months before is updated.

I asked Dr. Jason Dombroskie if following that checklist meant we should literally use "Cochylini New Genus 1-5" and he assured me that for now that would be the most appropriate way to handle this. I have updated the BG pages and included references. I have also updated all other species pages in Cochylini per this checklist.

Issue Continues
[Atroposia]/COCHYLINI NEW GENUS 1 oenotherana here
[Nycthia]/COCHYLINI NEW GENUS 5 pimana here

I changed the Hodges numbers to match MPG and added to the taxonomy info but did not change the genus.

Can we just follow MPG by creating the genus name and placing it in brackets? I don't think placing it in Unplaced-cochylini is productive and leaving them in Cochylis doesn't seem right either.

Edit - OK, I guess not. Brackets are not allowed. Some other method perhaps? How about Incertae-sedis--Atroposia or --Atroposia-- as examples?

My opinion, for what it's worth
is that it should be placed for the time being in Cagiva, until the taxonomists come up with a better place for it. This beetle is in a similar situation (see Margaret Thayer's comment).

Opposite situation
The comment you linked has a beetle being retained in its original genus pending a proper reassignment. By that reasoning -- which I agree with -- this moth should be in Aethes or possibly Phtheochroa, rather than the poorly defined and possibly invalid new genus.

Okay, not quite the same
As long as the guide page lists all the possible synonyms and explains the situation, I don't think it matters too much what genus we use as a temporary placeholder, since whichever one we choose will be incorrect. I was just going with the most recently used name, but the alternatives you mention wouldn't require making a new genus guide page, so perhaps they're preferable.

Another alternative would be to make a "no taxon" temporary node in place of the genus, such as "Cochylini New Genus Two" or something like that. There are already "Incertae sedis" pages elsewhere in the guide, so there's certainly precedent for that. So I guess that's the option I'll vote for.

Guide page made
We can continue to debate what we should call the genus, but this image deserves a species page so I went ahead and made one. The genus page is here. I was going to make it a "no taxon" but the system wouldn't let me place a species page directly below a "no taxon" that wasn't within a genus. It will be easy enough to change the genus name when the taxonomists decide what it should be.

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.