Pseudoclanis abyssinicus Lucas, 1857 [Invalid]

SYN. REV. Synonymized with Pseudoclanis postica as a subspecies by Rothschild & Jordan (1903: 222); then with the nominotypical subspecies by Carcasson, 1968, Jl E. Afr. nat. Hist. Soc. natn. Mus. 26 (3): 26 (a synonymy first considered likely by Rothschild & Jordan, 1903, Novit. zool. 9 (suppl.): 222). Implicitly raised to species status by Pierre, 1992, Bull. Soc. ent. Fr. 97: 284. Treated as a synonym of Pseudoclanis postica postica by Bridges, 1993, Cat. Fam. Gen. Spec. Sphingidae of the World: VIII.21. Reinstated as a species by Kitching & Cadiou, 2000, Hawkmoths of the world: 64. Resynonymized with Pseudoclanis postica by Kitching and Rougerie et al., 2018, Biodivers. Data J. 6: e22236. Reinstated as a species by Schmit, 2018, Antenor, 5 (2): 93. In size and colour, Pseudoclanis abyssinicus falls well within the range of variation of Pseudoclanis postica. In the male genitalia, Eitschberger (2007) stated that Pseudoclanis abyssinicus differed from all other species of the Pseudoclanis postica-group in the shape of the distal margin of the harpe, but this also falls within the range of variation of Pseudoclanis postica. Furthermore, Eitschberger (2007) listed a male from “Shoa prov., Ethiopia” which matched the habitus of other specimens from Ethiopia but the genitalia of which fell within the range of variation of his concept of Pseudoclanis postica. Finally, several Pseudoclanis abyssinicus DNA barcode sequences are nested within a large cluster also including Pseudoclanis postica, Pseudoclanis kenyae, Pseudoclanis aequabilis and Pseudoclanis evestigata in BoLD. Most form a single BIN, AAB5617; only one specimen from South Africa is widely separated and requires further study. Consequently, there is no justification for maintaining Pseudoclanis abyssinicus as a species separate from Pseudoclanis postica and the synonymy was undertaken by Kitching and Rougerie et al., 2018, Biodivers. Data J. 6: e22236. Based on an analysis of 38 DNA barcode sequences of the Pseudoclanis postica s.l. (although one sample from Ethiopia, CTBB-1686, proves to be a misidentified Pseudoclanis occidentalis when analyzed in a broader generic context), Schmit (2018) (STI 21905) recognized two subgroups, one comprising samples from northern Tanzania, Kenya and Ethiopia (and including the holotype of Pseudoclanis abyssinicus) and a second comprising samples from southern Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, Swaziland and South Africa. Schmit confirmed the lack of any diagnostic morphological differences in either habitus or male genitalia, both within and between the two groups. Nevertheless, based (only) on a DNA barcode divergence of 2 to 3.3% between the two groups, he reinstated Pseudoclanis abyssinicus as a valid species. However, regarding genetic differentiation in the genus Rhodoprasina, Řezáč (2018) (STI 21910) commented that “intraspecific divergences are of the order of 4% [and] differences below 2%, unless supported by conspicuous traits in habitus and the structure of the genitalia, cannot be considered significant, even at subspecies level”. This seems to be generally true of many Smerinthini that do not feed as adults and thus the divergence of 2 to 3.3% between the two subgroups of the Pseudoclanis postica s.l. in Schmit’s analysis would indicate subspecies differentiation at best. However, an analysis of a larger number of samples in BOLD (n = 112) shows that while the two subgroups are still observable, they no longer maintain their geographic coherence, and all still form a single BIN, AAB5617. There are several samples from northern Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Somalia nested deeply inside Schmit’s “first group”. Furthermore, one of these, SP9072 from Ethiopia, is one of Schmit’s own samples but which oddly was not included in his published analysis. Thus, there is still no justification for treating Pseudoclanis abyssinicus as a species separate from Pseudoclanis postica.