New data on the taxonomy , morphology and distribution of Naarda ineffectalis ( Walker , 1859 ) ( Lepidoptera , Erebidae , Hypeninae )

The taxon Naarda ineffectalis (Walker, 1859) has had an eventful taxonomic history; in certain periods it was even synonymised with the type species of the genus. Treated recently as a species distinct from Naarda bisignata Walker, 1866, i.e. the type species, its female form has been hitherto unknown. In this paper the female of the species is described and the known range of it is extended by new data from Cambodia, Thailand, Japan, Korea and Sumatra. The species rank of Naarda notata (Hampson, 1891) is formally reinstated (stat. rev.). An identification key to the Naarda species of Korea and main islands of Japan is also given. With 21 figures.


Introduction
The genus Naarda Walker, 1866 (type species: Naarda bisignata Walker, 1866) consists of small, slender-bodied moths with straight and porrect labial palps.They are generally of greyish or brownish ground colour, with yellow reniform and orbicular stigmata on the forewings and have very diverse genitalia in both sexes (Tóth and Ronkay 2014a).Currently it contains 108 mainly tropical species distributed in the Old World; the number of known extant species has been doubled in the last four years due to thorough checking of preserved material by Tóth and Ronkay (2014a, 2014b, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c) within the framework of a worldwide revision, which is in progress.
Naarda ineffectalis was described on the basis of a single specimen by Walker (1859) in the genus Hypena Schrank, 1802.Later in the 19th century this specimen was referred to as a male being "in very bad condition" (Hampson 1893).Soon after this, the interpretation of this taxon was changed: the type species Naarda bisignata Walker, 1866, as well as the taxa Cerynea laufellalis Walker, 1859 and Hypena notata Hampson, 1891, were treated as synonyms of Hypena ineffectalis by Hampson (1895).As a consequence of this synonymisation the genus Naarda was merged into Hypena.
Subsequently, Prout (1928), describing the taxon N. nodariodes, underlined several structural differences between the genera Hypena and Naarda and retained Naarda as a valid genus.As she did not change the status of any of aforementioned species, N. ineffectalis became regarded as the type species of Naarda.
The interpretation of these taxa remained unchanged until it was modified eighty years later by Holloway (2008), who formally restored the species rank of N. bisignata and N. laufellalis with detailed justification, but synonymised N. ochreistigma (Hampson, 1893) with N. ineffectalis.He treated N. notata as a good species in the description of one of his new taxa but did not explicitly state its revised status.In accordance with his statement about the difficulties of matching conspecific different sexes in the genus Naarda, Holloway did not describe the female of N. ineffectalis.
The aim of the present publication is (1) to stabilise the taxonomic concept of N. ineffectalis by describing its female and formally separating it from N. notata based on conspicuous morphological differences, (2) to provide new data concerning the distribution of N. ineffectalis and (3) in the light of recent discoveries, to publish a key on the temperate Pacific Naarda species.

Material and methods
Pinned, dry material was checked in the collections of the institutions and individual collectors listed below.Permanent microscopic slides were prepared to study the genitalia where it was necessary to facilitate identification.The conventional method was used, i.e. maceration in KOH, staining with Eosine and mounting in Euparal.The specimens and genital slides were photographed with various cameras, and the images were adjusted with the program ADOBE PHOTOSHOP CS2.Terminology follows Diakonoff (1954).7), TB830f, TB831f, TB832m (Fig. 6) (coll.HNHM).
Taxonomic comments.Holloway (2008) synonymised N. ochreistigma (Hampson, 1893) and N. ineffectalis on the basis of a topotypic male specimen from the latter taxon having the same genitalia as those of the N. ochreistigma holotype.
Examination of the head structure of the N. ineffectalis holotype specimen (Figs 1, 13) led me to the striking conclusion that it was, in contrast to Hampson (1893), actually a female.Additionally, the characters of the antenna and labial palps match well with those of N. ochreistigma females.These results support Holloway's synonymisation.Unfortunately the genitalia of the holotype specimen of N. ineffectalis cannot be studied because its abdomen is missing.
Naarda ineffectalis differs from N. notata in its shape of labial palps, overall size, ground colour and pattern of wings as well as in the genitalia of both sexes (Figs 1-20).These differences are detailed below, in the Diagnosis.I consider Naarda notata (Hampson, 1891), corroborating Holloway (2008), as a distinct species; stat.rev.
Female genitalia (Fig. 19).Corpus bursae ovoid, its anterior half densely covered by tiny grains, posterior half slightly wrinkled in longitudinal direction.Near the mouth of ductus bursae a broad and long, helical cervix arises.Ductus bursae smooth, broad, relatively short, nearly entirely covered by the triangular colliculum.Sternum A7 very narrow, sinus absent.

Figure 21 .
Figure 21.Distribution of N. ineffectalis.Previous records marked with dots, new records with diamonds.