Poliana raymurphyi Eitschberger & Melichar, 2017 [Invalid]

SYN. NOV. Eitschberger & Melichar (2017) (STI 21737) distinguished Poliana raymurphyi from Poliana laucheana on the basis of size and several features of the male and female genitalia. With respect to wingspan, male Poliana raymurphyi ranged from 8.4cm to 9.83cm (average = 9.2cm, n = 12) and male Poliana laucheana ranged from 6.4cm to 10.18cm (average = 10.12cm, n = 18). Female Poliana raymurphyi ranged from 10cm to 10.29cm (average = 10.12cm, n = 3) and male Poliana laucheana ranged from 8.34cm to 9.01cm (average = 8.69cm, n = 3). From this they claimed that Poliana raymurphyi was “significantly smaller” than Poliana laucheana. However, given the lack of any supporting statistical test, as well as the considerable overlap in the ranges of the two taxa (especially given that the largest male Poliana raymurphyi is larger than the largest Poliana laucheana), this assertion cannot be accepted. In terms of the differences in genital morphology, the bulbus ejaculatorius (“cuticular simplex”) of Poliana raymurphyi was stated to be half the length of that of Poliana laucheana. However, as only a single phallus of the former and two of the latter were illustrated, and the intraspecific variation of this feature has never been studied in detail, it is difficult to assess the significance of these observations. The cornuti on the two diverticula of the vesica were characterized as being more slender in Poliana raymurphyi than in Poliana laucheana but this distinction is not supported by a comparison of all the dissections illustrated by Eitschberger & Melichar (2017). Likewise, the shape of the ductus bursae, narrower in Poliana raymurphyi than in Poliana laucheana, appears to be an artefact of the degree of stretching or inflation of this membranous structure. For example, the ductus bursae of Poliana laucheana GP5936 (Eitschberger & Melichar, 2017: figs 864 & 875) is as narrow as that of Poliana raymurphyi GP5587 (Eitschberger & Melichar, 2017: figs 17a,b, 941 & 946). In addition, several of the cited paratypes of Poliana raymurphyi come from the Republic of the Congo, but from localities in the far southwest of the country, near the mouth of the Congo River, thereby placing them within the range of Poliana laucheana. Finally, with regard to DNA barcodes, there is currently only a small number of samples in BOLD but the divergence of the single sample of Poliana raymurphyi (BC-Mel 0098, a paratype with SMCR GP 526) is only 0.614-0.82% different from the six full-length samples of Poliana laucheana (but see also Poliana weiglei, STI: http://sphingidae.myspecies.info/taxonomy/term/5846). Thus, in view of the lack of any consistent differences, in the morphology or DNA barcodes, there is no justification for maintaining Poliana raymurphyi as a species.