Hedylidae were previously treated as a tribe of Geometridae: Oenochrominae, the "Hedylicae"[2][1] Prout[3] considered they might even merit treatment as their own family. Scoble first considered them to be a hitherto unrecognised group of butterflies and also suggested Hedylidae might possibly constitute the sister group of the "true" butterflies (Papilionoidea, rather than of (Hesperioidea + Papilionoidea). Weintraub and Miller[4] argued against this placement (but see[5]). In 1995, Weller and Pashley[6] found that molecular data did indeed place Hedylidae with the butterflies and a more comprehensive study in 2005[7] based on 57 exemplar taxa, three genes and 99 morphological characters, recovered the genus Macrosoma as sister to the ("true butterflies" + "skippers"). Since there are no obvious gaps between supposed species groups, according to basic morphological structure, Scoble (1986) synonymised the five pre-existing genera (33 of which had been described in Phellinodes) into just one genus. However, a phylogenetic analysis of all Macrosoma species is still needed.
Nomenclatural notes
In Zoological nomenclature, there exist numerous junior homonyms of Macrosoma Hübner, 1818,[8] (Macrosoma Leach 1819 (a reptile), Macrosoma de Haan 1826 (Odonata), Macrosoma Robineau-Desvoidy 1830 (Macrosoma multisulcata Berlese 1913 and M. floralis, Diptera: Muscidae), Macrosoma Brandt 1835 (Coelenterata), Macrosoma Hope 1837 (Coleoptera), Macrosoma Lioy 1864 or 1865 (Diptera: Sarcophagidae), Macrosoma Hammer 1979[9] (M.rugosa; Acarina: Oribatidae). To add to this potential confusion in lists of names, there exist two junior homonyms of Hedyle Guenée, 1857: Hedyle Bergh, 1895 (sea slugs in the order Opisthobranchia: superfamily "Acochlidioidea", family Hedylopsidae Odhner, 1952 [1] that are currently placed in the genus Hedylopsis Thiele, 1931)[2], and Hedyle Malmgren 1865 (a polychaete worm)[3]. The sea slug family name "Hedylidae Bergh, 1895" (type species Hedyle weberi Bergh, 1895) is thus also invalid.
Morphology and identification
The eggs of hedylid moths have an upright configuration and are variable in shape: in Macrosoma inermis they are particularly narrow and spindle-shaped[10] resembling those of some Pieridae and in the case of M. tipulata they are more barrel-shaped,[11] like certain Nymphalidae. The larvae resemble probably convergently those of Apaturinae.[10] Adult hedylids resemble geometer moths. They share many characteristics both (morphological and genetic) with the superfamiliesPapilionoidea and Hesperioidea. The abdomen is very long and slim, like many Neotropical butterflies of the subfamiliesIthomiinae and Heliconiinae, hence the name of one Macrosoma species "heliconiaria". Unlike other butterflies however, the antennae are un-clubbed, but rather filiform or bipectinate.[12] Unlike the familyGeometridae, in which they had been placed by the geometer expert L.B.Prout, hedylids lack tympanic organs at the base of the abdomen, but have them on the wings (see under Behaviour). Unlike other butterflies, however, (except in the unique case of the remarkable Australianskipper butterfly Euschemon rafflesia whose males possess these structures), the single-spined frenulum, and retinaculum is not lost or reduced in males, except in three Macrosoma species where there is no functional wing coupling system; the retinaculum is always lost in females and the frenulum may be vestigial.[1] The family have been fully catalogued [10] and illustrated in an identification guide.[13]
Butterfly-like characteristics of Hedylidae
"Mesoscutum" with "secondary line of weakness" near median "notal" wing process,[14] as in some representatives of Papilionidea and Hesperioidea (potentially unique butterfly character[15];
Male Forelegpretarsus lost,thus fused into two elements[16] as in nymphalid butterflies, with the mid and hindlegs used for perching, but apparently redeveloped in hesperiids;[1]
Egg upright, spindle-shaped and ribbed[17] as in some Pieridae (e.g. the Orange tip butterfly), some other butterflies, and as in some moth groups also;[15]
Larva with "anal comb"[18], as in some Hesperioidea (not however Megathyminae) and Pieridae, but not in other Papilionoidea except one species (and also independently in Tortricidae), that is used for propulsion of frass away from the caterpillar;[15]
Caterpillar with horn-like processes and a "bifid" tail as in many Nymphalidae;[17][19]
Caterpillar with "secondary setae", as in Pieridae[17];
Ventrallarvalproleg "crochet" hooks not forming a complete circle, unlike configuration in hesperiids and papilionoids;[1]
Hedylids are attracted to articifial lights, but occasionally some species can be found flying by day.[23] Thus, they may be involved in some mimicry complexes with Ithomiinae (e.g. the female only of Macrosoma lucivittata.[24] A few species are white[25] and resemble pierid butterflies (e.g. Macrosoma napiaria). Based on a study of Macrosoma heliconiaria , it has been found that hedylids have tympanic organs on their forewings for hearing[26] apparently homologous to the "Vogel's organ" in some Papilionoidea[27] that would help them evade bats at night. They have been shown to exhibit typical moth evasive behaviour towards bats such as erratic spiralling movements and dives.[28] The resting posture is often at a curious angle[4], with the thorax tilted and the posterior edge of the hindwings nearly touching the substrate (Scoble, 1986). The larvae which lack the prominent horns in the first instar tend to rest on the midrib of the leaf and often skeletonise leaves or at either side produce an untidy patchwork of holes[5]. The elegant pupa is attached by a cremaster and silken girdle[6] and sometimes resembles a bird dropping[7].
List of species
This list of species is largely based on phenetic characters.[10][13]
A few species have been sequenced for the mitochondrial genes "cytochrome oxidase I", and "ND1" and nuclear genes "Wingless" and "Ef-1?",[31] including Macrosoma semiermis. Some species are currently being barcoded.[32]
Cited literature
^ abcdefghijklmno Scoble, M.J. (1986) The structure and affinities of the Hedyloidea: a new concept of the butterflies. Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (Ent.), 53: 251-286.
^ Prout, L. B. (1910). Lepidoptera Heterocera, Fam. Geometridae, Subfam. Oenochrominae. Genera Insectorium, 104: 1-119.
^ Prout, L. B. (1931). The American Geometridae. The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 8: 1-144
^ Weintraub, J.D. and Miller, J.S. (1987). The structure and affinities of the Hedyloidea: a new concept of butterflies. Cladistics, 3: 299-304.
^ Scoble, M.J. (1988). Hedylidae: a response to Weintraub and Miller. Cladistics, 4: 93-96.
^ Weller, S.J., and Pashley, D.P. (1995). In search of butterfly origins. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 4: 235-246.
^ Wahlberg, N., Braby, M.F., Brower, A.V.Z., de Jong, R., Lee, M.-M., Nylin, S., Pierce, N.E., Sperling, F.A.H., Vila, R., Warren A.D. and Zakharov, E. (2005). Synergistic effects of combining morphological and molecular data in resolving the phylogeny of butterflies and skippers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272: 1577-1586.
^ Hammer, M. (1979). Investigations on the oribatid fauna of Java. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Biol. Skr., 22(9): 34.
^ abcd Scoble, M.J. (1990a). A catalogue of the Hedylidae (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea), with descriptions of two new species. Entomologica Scandinavica, 21: 113-119.
^ ab Lourido, G., Silva, N.M., Motta, C.S. 2007. Biological Parameters and Damage by Macrosoma tipulata Hübner (Lepidoptera: Hedylidae), in Cupuaçu tree Theobroma grandiflorum (Wild ex Spreng Schum)] in Amazonas, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology, 36(1):102-106.
^ ab Scoble, M.J. (1995). The Lepidoptera: Form, Function and Diversity. The Natural History Museum and Oxford University Press, London.
^ abcdef Scoble, M.J. (1990b). An identification guide to the Hedylidae (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea). Entomologica Scandinavica, 21: 121-158.
^ Minet, J. (1991). Tentative reconstruction of the ditrysian phylogeny (Lepidoptera: Glossata). Entomologica Scandinavica, 22: 69-95.
^ abcdef de Jong, R., Vane_Wright, R.I. and Ackery, P.R. 1996. The higher classification of butterflies (Lepidoptera): problems and prospects. Entomologica Scandinavica, 27: 65-102.
^ Ackery, P.R., de Jong, R and Vane-Wright, R.I. (1999). The Butterflies: Hedyloidea, Hesperioidea and Papilionoidae. Pp. 263-300 in Kristensen, N.P. (Ed.). Lepidoptera, Moths and Butterflies. Volume 1: Evolution, Systematics, and Biogeography. Volume IV/Part 35: 491 pp. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
^ abcd Scoble, M.J., Aiello, A. (1990). Moth-like butterflies (Hedylidae: Lepidoptera): a summary, with comments on the egg. Journal of Natural History, 24(1): 159-164.
^ Scoble, M.J., 1992. Guía de las Mariposas Hedílidas de Costa Rica (Lepidoptera: Hedylidae). In: Guía de Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad, 1: v, 30 pp, + 61 figs.
^ Lamas, G. and Grados, J. (1998). Sinopsis de los Hedylidae (Lepidoptera) del Perú. Revista Peruviana Entomologia, 40: 107-109.
^ ab Grados, J. (1998). Pp 119-120 in Alonso, A. and F. Dallmeier (eds). Biodiversity Assessment of the Lower Urubamba Region, Peru: Cashiriari-3 Well Site and the Camisea and Urubamba Rivers. SI/MAB Series #2. Smithsonian Institution/MAB Biodiversity Program, Washington, DC.
^ ab Kendall, R.O., (1976). Larval foodplants and life history notes for eight moths from Texas and Mexico. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, 30(4): 264-271.
^ Beccaloni, G.W. (1997). Ecology, natural history and behaviour of ithomiine butterflies and their mimics in Ecuador (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Ithomiinae). Tropical Lepidoptera, 8(2): 103-124.
^ Rydell, J., Kaerma, S., Hedelin, H. and Skals, N. (2004). Evasive response to ultrasound by the crepuscular butterfly Manataria maculata. Naturwissenschaften, 90(2): 80-83.
^ Yack, J.E. and Fullard, J.H. (1999). Ultrasonic hearing in nocturnal butterflies. Nature, 403: 265-266.
^ Janz, N. and Nylin, S. (1998). Butterflies and Plants: A Phylogenetic Study. Evolution, 52(2): 486-502.
Scoble, M.J. (1986). The structure and affinities of the Hedyloidea: a new concept of the butterflies. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology Series, 53: 251-286.