Sosxetra thutakanay Martinez, Homziak & Castillo-Argaez sp. nov.

Figs 11, 12, 20

Type material.

Holotype: • ♂, Ecuador, Napo, Yasuni Nat. Pk., 20 - IX – 4 - X – 03, B / K- TLS Coll. / Sample Number 7463, COI - 09 / MGCL Accession # 2019-5 E. C. Knudson, Knudson / Bordelon / UF FLMNH MGCL 1126522 / DNA Voucher LEP-85592. Deposited in MGCL. Paratype (1 ♂ MGCL): French Guiana: • French Guiana, Kaw Camp Caiman, Kaw Mt., 20-25 October 2017, 300 m. J. B. Heppner / DNA Voucher LEP-85587 (1 ♂).

Additional specimens examined.

(2 ♂ MGCL) Ecuador: • Same collecting data as holotype and paratype.

Diagnosis.

Sosxetra thutakanay can be readily distinguished from other species in the genus by its distinctive wing pattern. The forewing bears a broad white band along the fold, while the hindwing displays a unique knife-shaped marking between veins Rs and M 1, formed by whitish-purple scales, features not present in any other congeners. In addition, the male genitalia are diagnostic, characterized by a valva with a distinctly beak-like apex, a unique trait that separates this species from all others in the Sosxetra genus.

Description.

Head. Palpus marbled brown and dark brown, ventrally divided whitish-brown and brown; frons brownish-orange, darker than thorax; antenna brown with marbled brown and dark brown tufts. Thorax. Dorsum reddish-brown, paler medially; ventrum whitish-brown; patagium concolorous dorsally, slightly darker. Leg. Foreleg marbled as in palpus and patagium; mid- and hindlegs concolorous with thorax ventrally. Wing. Forewing length, male 35–38 mm; forewing reddish-brown dorsally, whitish-brown ventrally; area between medial and postmedial lines bright orangish-pink; broad white band along wing fold, nearly covering CuA 2 and Sc + R 1 between medial and postmedial lines.; reniform spot large, bean-shaped; reniform spot crossed by two dark brown lines basally in R 3, R 4, R 5; veins and interveinal lines dark brown, separated by orangish-pink bands; fringe brownish-yellow with six wide black terminal dashes; apex marked by narrow, sinuous brownish-yellow curve; hindwing similar in coloration to forewing; discal area matching orangish-pink tone of forewing; postmedial line bright orangish-pink; costal margin with long brownish-yellow hair-like scales; dark reddish-brown mid-lump; area between postmedial line and outer margin dark brown; regions between Sc + R 1 – M 1 dark orange with whitish-purple scales; space between Rs – M 1 with knife-tip shaped whitish-purple mark; fringe brownish-yellow with four black dashes between M 1 – CuA 1, broader between M 1 – M 3; posterior fringe whitish-brown, covering ~ ¹ / 3 × of wing. Abdomen. Entirely whitish-brown with reddish-brown tufts; last three sternites darker; A 1 with broad tuft, A 2 smaller, A 3 – A 7 tiny; genital area with long brown scales. Male genitalia. Valva broad, apex beak-like; sacculus rounded on outer margin; juxta straight, with minute medial notch; uncus short, beak-shaped; saccus V-shaped, lower side rounded; phallus with aedeagus 8 ½ × longer than wide; vesica simple, subequal in length to aedeagus. Female genitalia. Unknown.

Immature stages.

Life cycle and host plant association in this species remain unknown.

Genetic characterization.

The DNA barcode placed Sosxetra thutakanay (GenBank accession number: PQ 406479; BOLD BIN number: BOLD: AAJ 4009) sister to S. mamanina with ~ 3.3 % divergence (Fig. 1).

Etymology.

The species name is a combination of two Quechuan words thuta meaning moth and kanay which can be translated as ember (Laime-Ajacopa 2007).

Distribution.

The specimens collected are from Ecuador and French Guiana (Fig. 24).

Remarks.

Specimens from Ecuador (Fig. 11) are slightly different from those of French Guiana (Fig. 12), but DNA showed 0.8 % divergence which is why we placed them in the same species, but this needs examination of more specimens and further information, especially immature stages. Among the three Ecuadorian specimens, only one was well-preserved and selected as the neotype. Although the other two were severely damaged, they were still identifiable based on morphology; however, DNA barcoding was not performed on these specimens.