Manduca chinchilla
Very similar to Manduca rustica, but chalky grey rather than brown. Underside generally grey rather than brown. Forewing upperside transverse bands less jagged, more wavy, than in Manduca rustica. Hindwing underside with the most distal of the three dark bands most accentuated, not the most proximal as in Manduca rustica; these bands more curved distad anteriorly than in Manduca rustica.
Manduca chinchilla has been and still is a species that is poorly understood. It was originally described from syntypes from Arequipa in the extreme southwest of Peru and from Caracas in Venezuela. The most typical specimens are still those from the dry coastal regions of SW Peru, in the departments of Lima, Ancash and Arequipa. Eitschberger & Melichar (2014) then reported specimens of M. chinchilla from more distant and inland localities in the Peruvian departments of Cajamarca and Madre de Dios, as well as a single specimen from eastern Paraguay. However, these moths do not fully agree in habitus with those of the coastal Peruvian populations of M. chinchilla although the male genitalia were said to match. In addition, Eitschberger (2014) reported a specimen of M. chinchilla from the Argentine province of Misiones, and noted that the Manduca rustica rustica from the Argentine state of Salta illustrated by Moré et al. (2005) was also a specimen of M. chinchilla. The former was said to have been confirmed by dissection of the genitalia, but these were not illustrated and so the conclusion cannot be independently assessed. The problem of “chinchilla-like” Manduca rustica was also discovered during the 2014 recuration of the genus Manduca in NHMUK. In addition to “typical” M. chinchilla from SW Peru (Lima, Tacna, Arica), several very convincing M. chinchilla-like moths reared by Miles Moss in Pará (Belém City) were found. These would be well outside the present range of the species, but interestingly, regarding these specimens, Moss (1920) noted that there were two “apparently distinct larvae, found feeding at the same time in the Botanic Gardens on two species of Cordia, one being an exotic from Japan and yielding a larva of a very intense green [and the other was a bluish-green]. Both, however, on emergence proved to be typical rustica, and were probably the progeny of the same mother”. In view of the recent study of Eitschberger and Melichar (2014), this conclusion must be reassessed, together with the veracity, previously suspect, of the syntype of M. chinchilla from Caracas. However, a note of caution must be introduced. In their discussion of the genitalia, Eitschberger & Melichar (2014) compared M. chinchilla only with the genitalia of male and female M. rustica rustica from Arizona and Texas, USA, respectively (they may, of course, have undertaken a broader comparison but the USA specimens were the only ones illustrated). These populations are about as far removed from the southern South American M. chinchilla as it is possible to get and so would be expected to maximize any morphological differences between the two taxa. A comparison should have been made with sympatric M. rustica from Peru and Paraguay. This is particularly important because DNA barcode data suggest that the populations of M. rustica from Central and from South America do not constitute a homogeneous unit. Thus, until appropriate comparisons are made, ideally including DNA barcode data, the status of the populations attributed to M. chinchilla away from SW Peru must be considered unverified.