Xylena czernilai Volynkin 2011

Xylena czernilai Volynkin, 2011 (Figs. 2–8)

Xylena czernilai Volynkin, 2011 — Atalanta 42 (1–4): 238, fig. 9; col. pl. 3: 1. Type locality: "Russia, Altai Republic, Ongudai district,

Belyi Bom village environs, h = 955 m. 50°22'N, 87°01'E".

= Xylena alexander Benedek, Babics & Saldaitis, 2013 — Esperiana 18: 17, Plate 4, fig. 1; gen. fig. 15. Type locality: "China, N.

Sichuan, road Barkam / Hong Yuan, 3400 m, N32°10.354' E102°29.691' ", syn. nov.

= Xylena andreas Benedek, Babics & Saldaitis, 2013 — Esperiana 18: 17, Plate 4, fig. 2; gen. fig. 16. Type locality: "China, W.

Sichuan, road Menghugang/Kangding, N29°49.955' E102°02.827' ", syn. nov.

Type material examined: Holotype of czernilai: ♂, 18–21.IX.2010, Russia, Altai Republic, Ongudai district, Belyi Bom village environs, bottom of slope with Betula-Picea forest, 955 m. 50°22’N, 87°01’E. On wine-trap. Černila M. & Volynkin A.V. leg., slide AV0434 Volynkin (coll. ZIN); holotype of alexander (Figs. 4, 7): ♀, China, N. Sichuan, road Barkam / Hong Yuan, 3400 m, N32°10.354' E102°29.691', 23.IX.2011, leg. A. Floriani, slide No.JB 1835 ♀ (coll. GBG / ZSM); holotype of X. andreas (Figs. 5, 8): China, W. Sichuan, road Menghugang / Kangding, N29°49.955' E102°02.827', 12.IV.2010, 3000 m, leg. A. Floriani, slide No. JB 1642 ♀ (coll. GBG / ZSM).

Other material examined. 1 ♀, 02–04.IX.2012, Russia, Altai territory, Tigireksky Ridge, vicinity of Tigirek village, 500 m, 51°08'35'' N, 83°02'06'' E, Volynkin A.V. leg. (Coll. CAV); 1 ♀, Russia, Buryatiya, Eastern Sayan Mts., Mt. Khulugaisha near Mondy vill., 1800 m, 51°43'15.08''N, 100°59'31.73''E., S.A. Knyazev leg. (Coll. SKO); 2 ♂, 8– 9.V.2014, [Russia] Amur region, Zeya city, slope of hill, forest with oak and pine, at light-trap, 53°46’N 127°17’E, V.V. Dubatolov leg. (coll. SZMN); 1 ♀, China, Qinghai, 20km N. from Datong, H- 2730 m, N37°05.480’, E101°34.422’, 25. v. 2017, leg. A. Saldaitis (coll. AFM).

Distribution. Altai and Sayan Mts. in southern Siberia (Volynkin 2011; Volynkin & Knyazev 2013), Amur region, East (Dubatolov et al. 2014), Sichuan and Qinghai provinces, China (Benedek et al. 2012).

Note. COI sequences of the holotypes of X. alexander and X. andreas differ in 0.15 %% only. The holotype of X. andreas has no significant external differences from that of X. alexander (Figs. 4, 5) and differs in the female genitalia structure only (the shape of antrum, sclerotized section of ductus bursae, and corpus bursae) (Figs. 7, 8). Nevertheless, all these differences were resulted by the unusual position of some parts of the genitalia: the ovipositor in X. alexander is somewhat back squashed, while the antrum and the sclerotized section of ductus bursae in andreas are twisted and partly folded. The shape of corpus bursae of the two species is different, but this could be only a result of stronger processing of the genitalia by alkali solution after which the corpus bursae was spread broader. Nevertheless, the shape and configuration of the cervix bursae is indeed different, but this could be only individual variation and more material is needed to finally clarify the intraspecific variation. Taking into account all these points, we treat here X. andreas and X. alexander as conspecific. In addition, morphological differences between females of Siberian X. czernilai and Chinese populations described as X. andreas and X. alexander are not significant to establish any rank above the population level. To clarify more details of Chinese populations an examination of an additional material including males is necessary. Thus, we synonymize here X. alexander and X. andreas with X. czernilai.