Examination of the Scythrididae in the Bruand d’Uzelle collection: faunistic and taxonomic implications for the genus Scythris (Lepidoptera, Scythrididae)

A review was made of the Scythrididae in the Bruand collection. This led to certain faunistic and taxonomic changes for Bruand’s taxa. Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851), stat. rev., valid spec., has priority over Scythris crassiuscula (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855). Several synonymies are established: Scythris curtulella (Bruand, 1851), nomen dubium, is possibly conspecific with Scythris limbella (Fabricius, 1775); Scythris crassiuscula (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855), syn. nov. (= Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851)); Scythris subaureicinctella (Bruand, 1856), syn. nov., emendation (= Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851)); Scythris cinefactella (Bruand, 1851) is a nomen nudum (= Scythris tributella (Zeller, 1847), not Scythris laminella (D. & S., 1775) as considered by earlier authors); Scythris jurassiella (Bruand, 1858) is a nomen nudum (= Scythris bornicensis Jäckh, 1977). Scythris apicalis (Zeller, 1847) is deleted from the French checklist. Other species from the Doubs (France) are either confirmed or refuted. The year of publication of most of the taxa described by Bruand is 1851 and not 1847 as stated in the literature. Résumé. Les Scythrididae de la collection Bruand sont examinés. Les identifications sont revues, entraînant certaines modifications faunistiques et taxonomiques pour les taxons décrits par Bruand. Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851), stat. rev., valid. spec., a priorité sur Scythris crassiuscula (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855). Plusieurs synonymies sont établies: Scythris curtulella (Bruand, 1851) nomen dubium, est probablement conspécifique avec Scythris limbella (Fabricius, 1775); Scythris crassiuscula (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855), syn. nov. (= Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851)); Scythris subaureicinctella (Bruand, 1856), syn. nov., emendation (= Scythris subcinctella (Bruand, 1851)); Scythris cinefactella (Bruand, 1851) est un nomen nudum (= Scythris tributella (Zeller, 1847), non Scythris laminella (D. & S., 1775) comme considéré par les anciens auteurs); Scythris jurassiella (Bruand, 1858) est un nomen nudum (= Scythris bornicensis Jäckh, 1977). Scythris apicalis (Zeller, 1847) est à supprimer de la faune de France. D’autres espèces sont confirmées ou réfutées, provenant du Doubs (France). L’année de publication de la plupart des taxons décrits par Bruand est 1851 et non 1847 comme mentionné dans la littérature.

Bruand's collection was donated in 1849 or 1850 to the Museum of the Citadel of Besançon (Doubs, France) (Millière 1861: 653).Its condition having somewhat deteriorated, it was transferred to modern collection boxes during the second part of the 20 th century, perhaps by the intervention of Pierre Réal, a French lepidopterist (Audibert 2012;Delmas 2015).Some of the specimens are in bad condition (missing abdomens, mould) or they have disappeared completely with just the label remaining.
In his classification of the Tineidae (Bruand 1858), Bruand divided the genus Butalis into three groups: species with broad bodies and short proboscis; those with the male body less broad and flattened, the head looser against the prothorax; and those with a longer proboscis.In this article he revisited the list of known species of Scythris for Europe, mentioning the species known for the Doubs.
The date of publication of his catalogue was the subject of a study by Pierre Viette (1977).Viette gave 1851 as the date of publication of the part dedicated to the Scythrididae (part 6 after Viette), based upon receipt of the "Mémoires de la Société d'Émulation du Doubs" at the office of the French entomological society in Paris, thanks to dates handwritten in the journals.

Material and methods
In the course of a trip to Besançon, the museum curator Pascal Leblanc allowed me to examine the collection with the help of Daisy Steck.The specimens were photographed, identified by examination of the genitalia (mounted in Euparal) when this was possible (abdomen present) and the whole of the annotations made on the labels photographed and recorded.
The examination of the collection enabled the clarification of certain identifications made by Bruand and the establishment of the status of the four taxa of the Scythrididae described by him: Butalis curtulella Bruand, 1851, Butalis subcinctella Bruand, 1851, Oecophora cinefactella Bruand, 1851, andButalis grandipennis var. jurassiella Bruand, 1858.All of the French localities (Besançon, Morteau, Maison Rouge (commune of Les Bréseux), Jougne, and Mont d'Or (commune of Jougne)) are in the département of the Doubs (France).

Systematic list of the Scythrididae in the Bruand collection
For each species, the name employed by Bruand (1849, 1858) is given.Then comes the information taken from the literature, including the original description, followed by records from the collection and the current nomenclature.Finally, there are comments on the taxonomy (possible synonyms) and the faunistics.The information in square brackets concerns external information, notably related to the handwritten labels.

Bruand
Lhomme (1935-1946: 788) listed this species as only being found in France in the Doubs, based upon this record (no.3400).S. apicalis Z. 1847.[France: signalé seulement du Doubs (Bruand).VI.Chenille inconnue no.3400.S. apicalis Z. 1847.In France only known from the Doubs (Bruand).VI.Larva unknown].S. apicalis (Zeller, 1847) is now removed from the French checklist because there has been no other observation subsequent to this mention by Bruand and its known distribution (Armenia, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Greece, Romania) suggests it is absent from France (Bengtsson 1997;Passerin d'Entrèves and Roggero 2007).In addition, a search in the MNHN collection in Paris revealed no example of S. apicalis coming from France.On the other hand, Scythris obscurella is common in the Jura massif (Delmas 2015).

Scythris bornicensis Jäckh, 1977
Scythris jurassiella (Bruand, 1858)   Description of habitus: one female specimen; wingspan 15 mm; forewings and hindwings with a clear chocolate brown ground colour, bronzy.Uniform brown-bronzy, long cilia of both wings the same chocolate colour as the wing.No patterns on wings.Abdomen and head brown, bronzy.Habitus similar to a lot of others species of Scythris.Male unknown (see Fig. 1a, b).
Female genitalia (preparation no.6014) (Fig. 1c).Sterigma bell-shaped with an anterior margin incised.Examination of the genitalia of this specimen shows that it is similar to Scythris bornicensis Jäckh, 1977 (Bengtsson 1997: fig. 384).It is not a variety of S. grandipennis.This taxon is not valid because there is no original description or figure made by Bruand.Therefore the status of this name is proposed to be a nomen nudum that is conspecific with Scythris bornicensis Jäckh, 1977.
S. bornicensis Jäckh, 1977 has been recorded in the département of Cantal (Tourlan 1986) in France.S. bornicensis belongs to the grandipennis group and is rarely observed in France (Cantal, Doubs).Known, in addition, from Germany, Switzerland and Spain (Bengtsson 1997).The citation of S. grandipennis in the Doubs by Bruand is, therefore, an error, as stated by Lhomme (1935-1946: 787).In contrast, S. grandipennis is known from the Jura, a neighbouring département to the Doubs, and from Great Britain (Bengtsson 1997).
In 1997, Leraut cited the name "grandipennella Bruand, 1859" as a synonym of grandipennis (Haworth, 1828) (Leraut 1997: 115).The use of this name is probably a mistake.Bruand (1858: 644) used the name "Grandipennella (pennis), Haw.Vood., Gué (in litteris), [… ]"; no description or figure follows this citation and no publication of Bruand in 1859 concerning this taxon has been found.Therefore grandipennella is considered an incorrect spelling of grandipennis.A note at the bottom of the page "*1" corresponds to the following comment: "Fallacella Z. est très voisine de Seliniella; un peu plus petite, et plus claire.Ne serait-ce pas une simple variété de cette dernière?"[Fallacella Z. is very close to Seliniella; a little smaller and paler.Is this not simply a form of the previous species?].Current combination: Scythris fallacella (Schläger, 1847).It is Schläger who described fallacella and not Zeller as written on the label.

Scythris fallacella (Schläger
Remarks.Examination of the genitalia for this specimen shows that it is certainly this taxon (preparation genitalia no.6008, 1 male).The species is relatively common in French mountainous areas including the Doubs (Delmas 2015).Bruand's data is referenced in Lhomme (1935-1946: 787).Original description.A note at the bottom of the page "* 2" gives the following comment: "Cette espèce ressemble pour la couleur à Seliniella; elle a le corps aussi robuste, mais beaucoup plus court, et les ailes une fois moins longues" [This species is similar in colour to Seliniella; it has a more robust body, but it is much shorter, as are the wings] (Bruand 1851: 42).

Material examined.
There is a single specimen in the collection corresponding to this description, in box no.55, but in bad condition with the abdomen missing.It is accompanied by a label above the specimen: "But.

Current combination. Scythris curtulella
Without the abdomen, a definitive identification is uncertain.Nevertheless, the markings on the forewing strongly resemble those of S. limbella.The brief description by Bruand makes reference to seliniella, but this taxon, absent from the collection, is without ornamentation (Bengtsson 1997), in contrast to curtulella, which has a pattern on the forewing.
Description of habitus (Fig. 2a,b) can be made as follows, with reservations considering the condition of the specimen: one example of unknown sex; wingspan 14 mm; forewing with a clear golden brown ground colour, cream subapical streak in the form of Z and the appearance of cream marking in the middle of the wing.Brown ground colour more strongly evident in the region of the subapical streak.Hindwings a uniform brown, cilia of both wings the same colour as the wing.
Head and abdomen missing.Left hindwing missing.A small pinhole in the left forewing.These different morphological features could permit us to propose a synonymy with S. limbella (Fabricius, 1775) but because of the deteriorated state of the specimen, this is uncertain, in particular as there are indications that the forewings may have been glued to the specimen.Therefore S. curtulella is left as a nomen dubium.Original description."*3" corresponds to the following comment in the note at the foot of the page: "Semblable par la taille à curtulella, mais l'abdomen porte en dessous un demi-anneau d'un jaune d'or.L'exemplaire unique que j'ai pris à Morteau est une femelle.Serait-ce celle de curtulella?[Similar to curtulella in size, but the abdomen is marked underneath with a golden semi-circle.The sole example that I took at Morteau is a female.Is this that of curtulella?].Taxonomic notes.The description was made in 1851 and not 1847 as stated by Bengtsson (1997: 179) based on details given by Viette (1977).

Scythris subcinctella (Bruand
Bruand listed Morteau in his catalogue, but only "Jougne" and "Angleterre" (England) are mentioned on the label.He further stated that the specimen is a female, but it is in fact a male.The type bears many patches of mould on the wings and abdomen, making it impossible to discern the golden semi-circle mentioned by Bruand.The fore-and hindwings are a uniform dark brown without any markings, as with most Scythris species.The remark in his catalogue "An.Praeced.Femin."refers to the hypothesis that subcinctella is the female of curtulella.The examination of both specimens show clearly that they represent two different species.Bengtsson (1997: 179) and Passerin d' Entrèves and Roggero (2007: 40) considered this taxon a nomen dubium due to the inability to find relevant material.
Description of habitus: wingspan 9.5 mm.Small species.Fore-and hindwings uniform dark chocolate brown, without markings.Abdomen and head dark cholocate.
In 1858, Bruand again used the name subcinctella and elaborated at the foot of the page (p.645) "En 1856, j'ai désigné cette espèce sous le nom plus caractéristique de subaureicinctella" [In 1856, I gave this species the more appropriate name subaureicinctella]".This proposal of an emendation of name adds to the confusion, the more so because no trace of a publication in 1856 with this emendation of the name has been found.

Scythris laminella (Denis
The note on the label for aereella in the Bruand collection "identified by him" indicates that Duponchel had identified the specimen that Bruand possessed.There is no type specimen in the Duponchel collection in the MNHN in Paris.Examination of the genitalia indicates that it is Scythris laminella (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) (genitalia no.6011, 1 male, Fig. 4c, d).Taxonomic notes.S. cinefactella was placed in synonomy with S. laminella (Denis & Schiffermüller, 1775) by Leraut (1997: 115), probably by taking into account a statement of synonomy by  Bruand himself in 1858 with S. laminella (Bruand 1858: 646).However, the specimen referred to is S. tributella (genitalia no.6005, 1 male).Since this citation is dated to 1851, the taxon was not mentioned by Lhomme (1935), by Bengtsson (1997) or by Passerin d'Entrèves and Roggero (2007).
Description of habitus: very small species, wingspan 12 mm; fore-and hindwing chocolate brown without markings, wings slightly shiny at the base, head and abdomen black, hindwings lighter than forewings.The description of the imago is consistent with that for tributella.
Details given in catalogue.None.Taxonomic notes.The taxon fuscocuprella Haw.[sic], the correct spelling of which is fuscocuprea Haworth, 1828, was placed in synonomy with Monochroa tenebrella (Hübner, 1817) (Gelechiidae) by Bradley (1966).However, examination of the relevant specimen shows that it is Scythris picaepennis (Haworth, 1828) (preparation genitalia no.6007, 1 female, Fig. 6c).The species is known from Great Britain (Bengtsson 1997).The specimen must have been sent by Edward Doubleday (1881-1849), an English lepidopterist with whom Bruand corresponded regularly.That three names are mentioned on the label is probably an error by Bruand, who deals separately on the one hand in his monograph of the Tineidae with fuscocuprella Haw.[sic], and on the other hand with subcinctella Bruand and subaureicinctella Bruand (see the remarks to S. subcinctella).
Details given in catalogue.The taxa vagabundella and gravatella are mentioned in the revision of the Tineidae (Bruand 1858: 646) with no place of origin given.
Material examined.In box no.57 of the collection there is a corresponding specimen, without abdomen, accompanied by a label above the specimen which reads "B.[utalis] anae vagabundella Z.[eller], Bruand, Alpes" and another, without abdomen, with the label "B.anae gravatella Z.[eller] Bruand Jougne".
Remarks.It is curious that, without explanation, the word anae appears before the name of the species.The locality "Alps" and the impossibility of verification (specimen without abdomen) makes this record of little use.The species is more commonly known from southern Europe.S. gravatella is known from the Mediterranean region and from Charente-Maritime (Courtois 1995;Delmas 2015) but there are no records from the Jura.
Details given in catalogue.The species is mentioned in the revision of the Tineidae without giving any distribution information (Bruand 1858: 646).
Remarks.Known from Austria (Bengtsson 1997) and from France (Leraut 1980: 116;Delmas 2015) in the Alps.The validity of the identification cannot be established because of the missing abdomen.
Material examined.