4. caucasica Filipjev, 1962 (Figs 5, 40, 83)

Peronea caucasica Filipjev, 1962. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR 30: 377. Figs. 14-15. TL: Georgia, “Лагодехи” (Lagodekhi Reserve).

Types. Holotype ♂: “Lagod[ekhi] 8 10 87”, “колл. б. Вел. Кн. НиколаЯ Михайловича [coll. of the former Grand Duke Nikolay Mihailovich]”, gold circle, “praep. micr. № 3146”, “Gemalt von Mgr. R. Zawada-Skrzyński für Micr. Pal.”, “Holotypus Peronea caucasica Fil. ”, “ ZISP INS _LEP_0001500”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24204 Acleris caucasica (Filipjev, 1962) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”.

Paratypes: 2 ♂ and ♀ – ♂ “Lagodechi 2. V.885 Млокосевич [Mlokosevich]”, “колл. б. Вел. Кн. НиколаЯ Михайловича [coll. of the former Grand Duke Nikolay Mihailovich]”, white circle, “praep. micr. № 3151 Peronea caucasica Fil. ♂ Лагодехи [Lagodekhi]”, “Paratypus Peronea caucasica Fil. ”; ♂ “Лагодехи. Зака-тал окр. Тифл. г. Млокосъвич 15. VIII.96 [Lagodekhi. Outskirts of Zaqatala, Tbilisi Region, Mlokosevich 15. VIII.96]”, white circle, “praep. micr. № 3145 Peronea caucasica Fil. ♂ Лагодехи [Lagodekhi]”, “Paratypus Peronea caucasica Fil. ”; ♀ “Lagodechi ♀ | 9.10.87 Tripunctana ”, “колл. б. Вел. Кн. НиколаЯ Михайловича [coll. of the former Grand Duke Nikolay Mihailovich]”, gold circle, “praep. micr. № 3145 Peronea caucasica Fil. ♀ Лагодехи [Lagodekhi]”, “Paratypus Peronea caucasica Fil. ”, “Gemalt von Mgr. R. Zawada-Skrzyński für Micr. Pal.”, “Praep. micr. SVN 24229 Acleris caucasica (Filipjev, 1962) S. Nedoshivina pr. 2024”.

Present status. Acleris caucasica (Filipjev, 1962).

Comments. In the original description, Filipjev stated that the female was collected on 3.X.1887. However, the only female specimen bearing a gold circle, which indicates its type status, was collected on 9.X.1887. Therefore, I conclude that the collection date provided in the original description was likely erroneous.

Taxonomic notes. The species caucasica was originally described in the genus Peronea and was subsequently transferred to Acleris by Razowski (1966) as a bona species. Later, in his works of 2001, 2002 and 2008, the same author considered it as a subspecies of Acleris lacordairana (Duponchel, 1836). Genitalia of both sexes were illustrated in the original description; however, Razowski (2008) noted that female genitalia of caucasica were not re-examined and from the original drawing one cannot correctly determine the species. Unfortunately, in the vial containing genitalia preparation № 3145, corresponding to the female paratype, only bursa copulatrix was preserved. The shape of corpus bursae and signum matches that of lacordairana according to Razowski (2008).

On the other hand, I examined two females from the ZISP collection that are externally similar to the holotype of caucasica and lacordairana sensu Razowski (2008): one originates from the type locality of caucasica (Fig. 6), and the other is from Tiflis (now Tbilisi), a city located approximately 120 km west of the type locality. Both specimens have a bursa copulatrix of the same shape as that of the caucasica paratype but lack a signum (Fig. 82). In general, the female genitalia of these Georgian specimens are close to those of the nominotypical subspecies of lacordairana and its other subspecies, roxana Razowski et Yasuda, 1964, from Japan (according to Razowski 2008). However, they show clear differences: antrum broad, its length equals width, whereas in lacordairana, it is 1.5 times the width; proximal lobes of sterigma almost as broad as in roxana; proximal 2/3 of ductus bursae folded and maximum 4 times broader than basal third (in lacordairana and roxana, maximum 3 times broader).

I preliminarily conclude that these two females most likely belong to caucasica, and a discrimination based on the female genitalia is provided above. However, additional material is needed to confirm this assumption. In the male genitalia of caucasica ventral incision of sacculus before subterminal lobe shorter than in two other subspecies and directed backward toward valva base, overlapping notch of lower valva edge.

In Gilligan et al. (2018) caucasica and roxana are interpreted as bona species and longulana Eversmann, 1844, is listed as a junior synonym of caucasica. Based on my investigation, the specific status of caucasica can be supported by the differences in male and female genitalia discussed above. However, the synonymy of longulana is entirely incorrect. In the male genitalia of the longulana lectotype (Nedoshivina 2007), sacculus concave before end as in lacordairana whereas in caucasica, it is slightly curved; subterminal lobe of sacculus in longulana is long and distinct as in lacordairana, while in caucasica, it is relatively small, and ventral incision before the lobe is shorter than in longulana and lacordairana. Therefore, longulana Eversmann, 1844, should be considered as a junior synonym of lacordairana Duponchel, 1836, as proposed by Kyrki (1982).