Helcystogramma |
Generic features: Head thickly clothed with scales covering frons; Antenna 4/5 length of fw, shortly ciliate in male; Labial palp long, curved, ascending; S2 thickened with appressed scales; S2<=S3; Forewing termen straight or hardly sinuate; V2&3 stalked, V7&8 stalked, V7 to apex, V9 out of or connate with V7; Hindwing = breadth with forewing; trapezoidal, termen sinuate; cilia as long as breadth of wing; V3&4 connate or stalked, V6&7 stalked
Male genitalia: aedeagus with small apical hook
Male genitalia: aedeagus with small apical hook
H.rufescens vs H.lutatella
H.rufescens is similar to H.lutatella. The latter is confined to maritime cliffs in Dorset. According to MBGBI 4.2 and Gelechiid.co.uk: in H.rufescens the forewing is ochreous with veins lined darker, the lateral surface of the labial palps have brown scales and in the female the hindwing is whitish; while in H.lutatella the forewing is grey-brown without lining of the veins, the labial palps are white "above and below" without brown scales and in the female the hindwing is pale to dark grey. The presence of small black stigmata is said to be non-discriminatory, but these seem to be a constant feature of H.lutatella and a variable feature of H.rufescens, so their absence probably rules out H.lutatella. On reviewing web images, it may be more true to say that H.lutatella averages darker, but there is considerable overlap in ground colour; and some images labelled H.lutatella do show dark-lined veins. I would also need to examine the labial palps of both species in more detail to determine the usefulness of the absence of brown scaling in identifying H.lutatella and to determine exactly what is meant by 'above and below'. I also have some doubts about the reliability of distinguishing a 'whitish' from a 'pale grey' female hindwing; though a dark grey female hindwing should indicate H.lutatella.
Male genitalia: Both species are illustrated in MBGBI4.2 and shown at Moth Dissection. I am unable to discern any consistent differences between these illustrations and images. The image at Moth Dissection indicates that the shape of a process at the base of the vinculum is important, but the shape of this part is not clear in the Moth Dissection image of H.lutatella and I can perceive no clear difference in the illustrations of this part in MBGBI4.2. The Moth Dissection image of H.lutatella also shows an unlabelled part of the integument of both species, which looks like it might be the first abdominal sclerite - this shows a midline suture in H.lutatella but not in H.rufescens and may show a difference in shape of a sclerotised arc anterior to this. There is a comment that this preparation was used in MBGBI4.2 - but in MBGBI4.2 the equivalent illustration is shown in relation to the female genitalia and does not show the suture - though it does confirm that it is the anterior part of the abdomen we are looking at.
Female genitalia: Both species are illustrated in MBGBI4.2, H.rufescens is shown at Moth Dissection with the comparative image of the anterior part of the abdomen also shown here. It seems to be a feature of the genus that the sclerotisation around the ostium is extended anteriorly on either side of the ostium (and in the lateral image below it looks as though this sclerotisation is reflexed). It looks as though there is a difference between the species in the shape of this sclerotisation - but I need to do more work to determine exactly what the difference is. MBGBI4.2 also shows a more extensive scobinate signum in H.rufescens than in H.lutatella.
H.rufescens is similar to H.lutatella. The latter is confined to maritime cliffs in Dorset. According to MBGBI 4.2 and Gelechiid.co.uk: in H.rufescens the forewing is ochreous with veins lined darker, the lateral surface of the labial palps have brown scales and in the female the hindwing is whitish; while in H.lutatella the forewing is grey-brown without lining of the veins, the labial palps are white "above and below" without brown scales and in the female the hindwing is pale to dark grey. The presence of small black stigmata is said to be non-discriminatory, but these seem to be a constant feature of H.lutatella and a variable feature of H.rufescens, so their absence probably rules out H.lutatella. On reviewing web images, it may be more true to say that H.lutatella averages darker, but there is considerable overlap in ground colour; and some images labelled H.lutatella do show dark-lined veins. I would also need to examine the labial palps of both species in more detail to determine the usefulness of the absence of brown scaling in identifying H.lutatella and to determine exactly what is meant by 'above and below'. I also have some doubts about the reliability of distinguishing a 'whitish' from a 'pale grey' female hindwing; though a dark grey female hindwing should indicate H.lutatella.
Male genitalia: Both species are illustrated in MBGBI4.2 and shown at Moth Dissection. I am unable to discern any consistent differences between these illustrations and images. The image at Moth Dissection indicates that the shape of a process at the base of the vinculum is important, but the shape of this part is not clear in the Moth Dissection image of H.lutatella and I can perceive no clear difference in the illustrations of this part in MBGBI4.2. The Moth Dissection image of H.lutatella also shows an unlabelled part of the integument of both species, which looks like it might be the first abdominal sclerite - this shows a midline suture in H.lutatella but not in H.rufescens and may show a difference in shape of a sclerotised arc anterior to this. There is a comment that this preparation was used in MBGBI4.2 - but in MBGBI4.2 the equivalent illustration is shown in relation to the female genitalia and does not show the suture - though it does confirm that it is the anterior part of the abdomen we are looking at.
Female genitalia: Both species are illustrated in MBGBI4.2, H.rufescens is shown at Moth Dissection with the comparative image of the anterior part of the abdomen also shown here. It seems to be a feature of the genus that the sclerotisation around the ostium is extended anteriorly on either side of the ostium (and in the lateral image below it looks as though this sclerotisation is reflexed). It looks as though there is a difference between the species in the shape of this sclerotisation - but I need to do more work to determine exactly what the difference is. MBGBI4.2 also shows a more extensive scobinate signum in H.rufescens than in H.lutatella.
H.trianulella has two British records, both Isles of Scilly in October 2013. It is readily separable from the other two species by the presence of partial white rings around the forewing stigmata.
Description: Scaled proboscis. No ocelli. Labial palps S2 ascending, S3 recurved and ~same length as S2. Forewing elongate, almost rectangular; apex and tornus fairly distinct, apex almost 90 deg, tornus slightly >90 deg; 1 plical and 2 discal stigmata, each with a small ring of white scales (hence triannulella); ground colour brownish with darker streaks at the dorsum, fold and disc, and with all the veins to the costa and termen lined dark; terminal interneural dots; V2&3 stalked, V7&8 stalked*. Hindwing broader than forewing, cilia shorter than hindwing breadth; apex not or minimally produced. * The genus description in MBGBI4.2 says V7 to apex - if my interpretation is accurate it looks more like V8 to apex in this specimen. It is possible that it is the interneural spaces that are dark-lined and the terminal dots are neural, in which case V7 could be interpreted as to the apex. The genus description also has V9 out of or connate with V7 - but as far as I can see V9 is clearly out of the disc in this specimen.
Female genitalia: Ovipositor fairly short; ostium with a postero-ventral sclerotised extension from sterigma (this arrangement looks very similar to the drawings of Helcystogramma female genital drawings in MBGBI4.2 (figs 45c & 45d)); a pair of small lateral sclerotisations in introitus; short narrow ductus bursae, then a junction to a broad pleated ribbon-like posterior part of bursa copulatrix which then opens anteriorly to a more 3-dimensional somewhat less pleated anterior part of bursa copulatrix which contains a small roundish signum. (It is likely that this pleated ribbon shape of the bursa copulatrix would like more like the broad sac shape of the MBGBI drawings of other Helcystogramma species if it were fluid-filled).
Description: Scaled proboscis. No ocelli. Labial palps S2 ascending, S3 recurved and ~same length as S2. Forewing elongate, almost rectangular; apex and tornus fairly distinct, apex almost 90 deg, tornus slightly >90 deg; 1 plical and 2 discal stigmata, each with a small ring of white scales (hence triannulella); ground colour brownish with darker streaks at the dorsum, fold and disc, and with all the veins to the costa and termen lined dark; terminal interneural dots; V2&3 stalked, V7&8 stalked*. Hindwing broader than forewing, cilia shorter than hindwing breadth; apex not or minimally produced. * The genus description in MBGBI4.2 says V7 to apex - if my interpretation is accurate it looks more like V8 to apex in this specimen. It is possible that it is the interneural spaces that are dark-lined and the terminal dots are neural, in which case V7 could be interpreted as to the apex. The genus description also has V9 out of or connate with V7 - but as far as I can see V9 is clearly out of the disc in this specimen.
Female genitalia: Ovipositor fairly short; ostium with a postero-ventral sclerotised extension from sterigma (this arrangement looks very similar to the drawings of Helcystogramma female genital drawings in MBGBI4.2 (figs 45c & 45d)); a pair of small lateral sclerotisations in introitus; short narrow ductus bursae, then a junction to a broad pleated ribbon-like posterior part of bursa copulatrix which then opens anteriorly to a more 3-dimensional somewhat less pleated anterior part of bursa copulatrix which contains a small roundish signum. (It is likely that this pleated ribbon shape of the bursa copulatrix would like more like the broad sac shape of the MBGBI drawings of other Helcystogramma species if it were fluid-filled).
