Procridinae

Examples of this subfamily included in the analyses of Yen et al. (2005) were not recovered as a monophyletic unit, being divided amongst two basal clades, one of which included the genus Inouela Efetov, originally described in the Chalcosiinae.

Tarmann (1994, 2004) and Efetov & Tarmann (1995, 1999), in their extensive studies of the Procridinae, have refined the concept of the subfamily and shown monophyly for at least some of its components. Tarmann (1994) excluded the Callizygaeninae from the original concept of the subfamily of Alberti (1954) and described the tribe Artonini, defining it on the basis of: presence of triangular chaetosemata extending forward between the compound eye and the ocellus; small dorsolateral evaginations on abdominal segments 2 and 7 of the adult, sometimes secondarily reduced or lost; fan-shaped valve of the male genitalia with strongly sclerotised costal and ventral margins supporting a very translucent, folded central part. He indicated that the tribe Procridini is a collection of monophyletic subgroups that may eventually be divided into further tribes.

The molecular analysis of Niehuis et al. (2006) recovered a clade that included all the Procridinae exemplars, placing the only Artonini taxon (Thyrassia Butler) as sister to a clade that included eight species from five Procridini genera.

Tarmann (1994) defined the subfamily as a whole on: lack of a cuticular defence system in the larva; presence of a pair of accessory glands close to the oopore, probably homologous to, but differing from Petersen’s gland in the Zygaeninae; lack of a pseudobursa (present in other Zygaenidae) and a reduced or absent lagena (present in most Ditrysia) in the female genitalia. Tarmann (2004) described these potential autapomorphies in more detail, and noted in addition a pair of elliptical, semi-eversible glands on abdominal segments 2 and 7 that in Artonini persist as bulb-like structures in the pupa and adult.

More general features of the subfamily were also discussed by Tarmann (2004). The moths are amongst the smallest of the Zygaenidae, with narrow wings as in Zygaeninae, the facies of some groups showing mimicry of Hymenoptera and Diptera; some Oriental taxa have facies converging on that of syntomine Arctiinae. The male antenna is typically bipectinate and that of the female biserrate, both sexes having the surfaces constructed of irregular crests and series of holes where scales and sensory hairs are attached. The subfamily differs from other zygaenids in having inter-ommatidial setae in the compound eye. The chaetosemata are large, but well separated and more or less triangular. The wing venation is variable and of limited value in classification of the subfamily. Branching of the forewing radial sector veins is infrequent, all or most arising directly from the cell.

In the male genitalia the uncus is uniformly single, usually long and slender, without distal setae. The valves have the costal and ventral margins sclerotised, with a more translucent area in between. There are some differences in this between the two tribes as discussed under each. The aedeagus is tube-like and often has cornuti on the vesica.

The female genitalia frequently have the ductus bursae expanded into a large, often sclerotised praebursa that may also be spined or toothed. It leads into the corpus bursae by means of a short neck or ductus intrabursalis. The ductus seminalis arises from the corpus bursae, which lacks signa.

The larvae have secondary setae on verrucae in later instars. The distinctive glands on abdominal segments 2 and 7 were mentioned earlier. The chaetotaxy of first instar larvae is proving to be important in classification within the subfamily (Efetov et al., 2006).