Pseudoclanis solennae Schmit, 2018

As a result of his synonymy of Pseudoclanis bianchii with Pseudoclanis [postica] abyssinicus (but which is rejected here, see http://sphingidae.myspecies.info/taxonomy/term/5808), Schmit (2018) (STI 21905) described the species identified as Pseudoclanis bianchii by Kitching & Cadiou (2000) (STI 18788) as Pseudoclanis solennae. The two female paratypes of Pseudoclanis solennae were said to differ from the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii in being smaller (forewing length = 35-39mm, n = 2, rather than 40mm) with rather darker and more strongly marked transverse lines on both wings. Indeed, all the features that Schmit gave to distinguish the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii from Pseudoclanis solennae would also serve to distinguish the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii from the holotype of Pseudoclanis [postica] abyssinicus. It would seem that the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii is just a particularly pale specimen, which may simply be the result of development in a more arid and hotter environment. Such environmentally induced changes in pattern intensity are frequent in smerinthine hawkmoths. Schmitt (2018) also commented that the cluster of three samples of Pseudoclanis solennae (the holotype and two paratypes) differed in their DNA barcode sequences by 6 to 7.8% from a cluster of four “Pseudoclanis abyssinicus”. This figure is, however, somewhat misleading as one of the latter samples, CTBB-1686, clusters with Pseudoclanis occidentalis when a broader sampling of Pseudoclanis taxa is analyzed and is clearly hen a misidentified specimen of that species (which reaches the easternmost limit of its distribution in western Ethiopia). However, analysis of several other samples of the Pseudoclanis bianchii s.l. group in BOLD reveals that they actually comprise three BINs. One, ACU7346, contains the holotype and allotype of Pseudoclanis solennae; a second, ADI6925, comprises a single paratype of Pseudoclanis solennae from Debark in the far north of Ethiopia; and the third, ABX1725, includes a specimen from the Bale Mountains (there is a second specimen in this BIN stated as being from Mizoram, India, which is clearly mislabeled). The DNA barcode divergences between these BINs are: ACU7346 (solennae HT& AT) – ADI6925 (solennae PT): 2.34%; ACU7346 (solennae HT& AT) – ABX1725 (Bale): 3.12%; ADI6925 (solennae PT) – ABX1725 (Bale): 3.5%. Although based on a small number of samples, these divergences are suggestive of three taxa. 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 2.34% between the two subgroups of the type series of Pseudoclanis solennae would indicate subspecies differentiation at best. Further sampling to fill the distribution gap in western Ethiopia is required to confirm whether subspecies status for the northern populations of Pseudoclanis solennae is warranted. The divergence of >3% between Pseudoclanis solennae and the sample from the Bale Mountains is suggestive of a species level difference and the latter population is provisionally interpreted as Pseudoclanis bianchii. However, DNA barcoding of the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii is required to determine to which BIN it belongs and thus to which BIN the name should be attached. Schmit (2018) stated that he had requested a tissue sample from the holotype of Pseudoclanis bianchii but if it has been supplied it seems that it has yet to be sequenced.