Manduca paphus subsp. caestri [(Blanchard, 1854) ]

Genus: Manduca

Species: Manduca paphus

Subspecies:

Manduca paphus subsp. caestri (Blanchard, 1854)

Usage:

valid

Reference:

Fauna Chilena. Insectos orden VI. Lepidoptera. Pp. 1-112 in 52

Type data:

Type(s) Chile: Concepcion [?CMNH]. There is a specimen in CMNH, ex coll. Boisduval, with a label stating that it is the specimen figured by Blanchard in Fauna Chili 7: pl. 5, fig. 9. Boisduval, 1875, in: Boisduval & Guenée, Hist. nat. Insectes (Spec. gén. Lépid. Hétérocères), 1: 72, stated that he had received Sphinx caestri from Blanchard on the completion of his work on the Fauna Chili with Gay. This specimen may be one of Blanchard's types. However, it also bears an additional label stating "Parag." The specimen may thus be one of the specimens reared in Paraguay by M. Isabelle listed under Manduca paphus as a misidentification (see also Sphinx tabaci). A problem might arise because this specimen appears to be a male Manduca diffissa mesosa. The moth should be dissected to confirm its identity but should it prove to be Manduca diffissa mesosa, then Sphinx caestri would take priority over that name. The valid name for the Chilean subspecies of Manduca paphus would then be Sphinx eurylochus.

Taxonomic Notes:

SYN. NOV. Synonymized with Protoparce sexta as a subspecies by Rothschild & Jordan, 1903, Novit. zool. 9 (suppl.): 70. Treated as a species by Köhler, 1924, Z. wiss. InsektBiol. 19 (Sonderheft): 6. Resynonymized with Manduca sexta as a subspecies by Draudt, 1931, in Seitz (ed.), Die Gross-Schmett. Erde 6: 847. When Haxaire & Mielke (2020) (STI 22136) reinstated Manduca sexta paphus as a species, they did not discuss the status of the two other Neotropical subspecies of Manduca sexta, Manduca sexta caestri from Chile and Manduca sexta leucoptera from the Galapagos Islands. Their action resulted in a biogeographically incongruous distribution for Manduca sexta, the nominotypical subspecies of which occurs only on the mainland, from Panama to Canada. With regard to the morphology of Manduca sexta caestri, Rothschild & Jordan (1903) (STI 19807) stated “sexual armature as in paphus”, but also that of the four subspecies of Manduca sexta that they recognized, “caestri alone [was] fairly constant and more easily recognisable”. Analysis of DNA barcode data places samples of Manduca sexta caestri in the same BIN (ABX6206) as Manduca paphus, with those of Manduca sexta in a separate BIN, AAA7347. Taken together this evidence indicates that Manduca sexta caestri is more closely related to Manduca paphus than to Manduca sexta, but its exact taxonomic status is unclear. Provisionally, it is treated here as Manduca paphus caestri.