A review of the Miletini (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) J. N. Eliot Upcott House, Bishop's Hull, Taunton, Somerset TA4 1AQ Contents Synopsis 1 Introduction 1 Acknowledgements 2 Checklist of the Miletini 3 Tribal characters 6 Key to the genera of Miletini 7 Genus AllotinusC.&R.Felder 7 Genus Logania Distant 57 Genus Lontalius gen. n 74 Genus Miletus Hiibner 75 Genus Megalopalpus Rober 84 References 86 Index 104 Synopsis This review of the Miletini is based mainly on characters of the male genitalia. Keys to, and descriptions of, the genera, subgenera, species and subspecies are provided. One genus, one subgenus, eight species and seven subspecies are newly described. One species is relegated to subspecies, and three subspecies are raised to species; 41 new synonyms are established. Introduction The butterflies which are here considered to comprise the Oriental section of the tribe Miletini Reuter, 1897 (see Corbet, 1939b) were originally given family-group status (as the Gerydinae) by Doherty (1886), mainly on the basis of their distinctive eggs. Reuter (1897: 263) included the African genus Megalopalpus Rober, 1886, in the group, treating the latter as a tribe, the Miletidi, which is distinguished from all other Lycaenidae by the peculiar labial palpi bearing long hairs on the inner surface of the basal segment (Basalfleck). Corbet (19396) used the family group name Miletinae in place of Gerydinae because Gerydus Boisduval, 1836, is an objective synonym of Miletus Hiibner, 1819; his action is valid under Article 40b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1985). Eliot (1973) used Miletinae in a wider sense than previous authors, placing the Miletini (Miletinae sensu Corbet) as one of four tribes which he included in the subfamily. Only two complete analyses of the Oriental Miletini (sensu Eliot) have so far been attempted, both by Fruhstorfer who based his studies in part on a number of genitalia preparations made by Reverdin. In the first (Fruhstorfer, 1913-14) it is evident that the new taxa he described had three separate origins. Many descriptions are based on specimens in his own collection, some of which bear type and/or determination labels attached either at that time or at some later date. Others relate to specimens in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) and Walter Rothschild at Tring, to which no type or determination labels were attached; these collections were studied by Fruhstorfer during a visit to England. Finally, a few descriptions are based on records and figures by other authors of specimens which he had not seen; in Fruhstorfer's first analysis such taxa were, in most cases, based on a work by Semper (1889), so those specimens listed by Semper may be considered to comprise Fruhstorfer's type-series. In certain cases, however, it is clear that Fruhstorfer applied a name to a single specimen figured by Bull. Br. Mus. not. Hist. (Ent.) 53 (1): 1-105 Issued 25 September 1986
BioStor
