Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2024 | 16(9): 25843–25855

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8485.16.9.25843-25855

#8485 | Received 19 April 2023 | Final received 22 July 2024 | Finally accepted 10 September 2024

 

 

Taxonomic review of genus Gazalina Walker (Thaumetopoeinae: Notodontidae: Lepidoptera) from India

 

Amritpal Singh Kaleka 1 , Gagan Preet Kour Bali 2  & Navkiran Kaur 3

 

1,3 Department of Zoology & Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University, Patiala, Punjab 147002, India.

2 Department of Biosciences-UIBT, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab 140413, India.

1 apskaleka@gmail.com, 2 gaganviren@gmail.com (corresponding author), 3 navkiran.dandiwal@gmail.com

 

 

Editor: Jatishwor Singh Irungbam, Centrum ALGATECH, Třeboň, Česká Republika.                  Date of publication: 26 September 2024 (online & print)

 

Citation: Kaleka, A.S., G.P.K. Bali & N. Kaur (2024). Taxonomic review of genus Gazalina Walker (Thaumetopoeinae: Notodontidae: Lepidoptera) from India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 16(9): 25843–25855. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8485.16.9.25843-25855

  

Copyright: © Kaleka et al. 2024. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: University Grants Commission, New Delhi (MANF Scheme); F1-17.1/2O13-14/MANF/2013-14-SIK-27073 Dated: 6-02-2014.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

Author details: Amritpal Singh Kaleka is presently serving in the Department of Zoology & Environmental Sciences, Punjabi University and has 31 years of teaching and research experience. He successfully completed research projects from CSIR, DST, UGC and currently a research project from MoEFCC is in progress. He published 114 research papers, 50 articles and book chapters. He attended 60 Conferences and remained instrumental in organizing 16 conferences/Symposia and workshops. Dr. Gagan Preet Kour Bali is currently affiliated with Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab as an assistant professor. Her area of specialization is entomology and she is working to assess moth diversity from north-west Himalayas since 2014. She has contributed 16 research papers in scientific Journals of repute. She is also associated with Intech-Open as an author & reviewer and contributed five book chapters pertaining to insects.  Navkiran Kaur affiliated with Punjabi University, Patiala. Her area of interest is entomology and has worked on internal genitalic features of moths.

 

Author contributions: Study design and article drafting—ASK & GPKB; molecular analysis—GPKB; Lab & field work—ASK, GPKB & NK.

 

Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the authorities of forest departments of Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir for their support during field surveys for sample collection.

 

 

Abstract: The taxonomic position of the genus Gazalina Walker remained ambiguous and it continuously reshuffled its position in the family Notodontidae and subfamily Lymantriinae of family Erebidae. The present study has been carried out to elucidate its taxonomic position in accordance with the morphological, molecular, larval, and behavioural characteristics of its species. A detailed account of two species namely Gazalina chrysolopha (Kollar) and Gazalina apsara (Moore), the type species of this genus, has also been given. The CoI sequence of Gazalina chrysolopha (MH795522) and Gazalina apsara (MH790288) from the present study were compared with the available reference sequences in Genbank by using BLAST. Its placement under the subfamily Thaumetopoeinae of the family Notodontidae has been justified.

 

Keywords: Apsara, Chrysolopha, diagnosis, genitalia, Lymantriidae, phylogenetic, processionary moths, sequence analysis, taxonomic, wing venation.

 

 

Introduction

 

Walker (1865) established the genus Gazalina Walker 1865 with Gazalina venosata Walker as its type species from  northern India under the family Liparidae. Kirby (1892) followed the same nomenclature. Hampson (1892) reported three species namely G. apsara (Moore, 1859), G. chrysolopha (Kollar, 1844) and transversa Moore, 1879 from India. While dealing with Eastern and Australian moths, Swinhoe (1900) described a new species, Gazalina intermixta, under this family. Grunberg (1912) shifted this genus to the family Notodontidae. Later, Swinhoe (1922) revised various genera referable to the family Liparidae and discussed four species—G. apsara Moore (formerly Venosata Walker), G. chrysolopha (Kollar), G. intermixta Swinhoe, and G. transversa Moore—under the family Liparidae. Kiriakoff (1968) further placed Gazalina in the family Thaumetopoeidae, a distinct family.  Further, he studied the male genitalia of apsara Moore, the type species of this genus, and diagnosed the absence of gnathos, a diagnostic feature of the family Notodontidae (Kiriakoff 1970). Cai (1979) treated it under the family Notodontidae and discussed three species G. apsara Moore, G. chrysolopha (Kollar), and G. transversa Moore in ‘Economic Insect Fauna of China’. Miller (1991) again doubted the placement of the genus Gazalina Walker. Sugi (1994) described three species—G. apsara (Moore), G. chrysolopha (Kollar), G. transversa Moore—from Nepal under the family Notodontidae. Raman (1998) studied the outbreak of G. chrsolopha (Kollar) accounting for it under family Notodontidae. Wu (2002) described four species—G. apsara (Moore), G. chrysolopha (Kollar), G. transversa Moore, and G. putrificata Sugi—from China under Notodontidae. Srivastava & Mukhopadhyay (2006) studied the life cycle and bio-ecology of G. chrsolopha (Kollar) accounting for it under the family Notodontidae. Sanyal et al. (2011) studied Gazalina apsara (Moore) as an indicator species from the Himalaya under the family Notodontidae. Kocak & Kemal (2016) enlisted it under the family Thaumetopoeidae. While dealing with molecular phylogeny, Kobayashi & Nonaka (2016) also discussed the genus Gazalina Walker in the subfamily Thaeumatopoeinae. Uniyal et al. (2016) catalogued the genus Gazalina Walker under the subfamily Thaumetopoeinae of the family Notodontidae from Gangotri landscape, Uttarakhand, India.  Shah et al. (2017) enlisted the genus Gazalina Walker under the subfamily Lymantriinae. While studying the medical complications caused by different species of Gazalina Walker, Manandhar et al. (2018) discussed it under the family Notodontidae. Bhattacharyya et al. (2019) enlisted the genus Gazalina Walker under the subfamily Thaumetopoeinae of the family Notodontidae from Neora Valley, West Bengal, India. Recently, Chettri et al. (2021) enlisted Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar and G. transversa Moore from Sikkim and placed these species under the family Notodontidae. Gurung et al. (2021) described Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar as a major pest consuming foliage of trees especially Alnus nepalensis D.Don, Rhododendron arborium Smith, and other fodder plants; but the taxonomic position was not clear. Khanal & Shrestha (2022) studied the diversity, distribution, and medical significance of Gazalina species from Nepal. The morphological characters including external as well as internal genitalic features, behavioural characters, and molecular analysis of two species namely Gazalina chrysolopha (Kollar) and Gazalina apsara (Moore), the type species of this genus have been compiled in detail to elucidate the position of genus Gazalina Walker.

 

 

Material and Methods

 

The adult moths were collected from different localities of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir (India) by using light traps equipped with a 160w mercury bulb and vertical white screen and their behaviour was observed during the collection period. The external morphological characters were studied as such from the preserved specimens. The permanent slides were prepared to study the wing venation. The male and female moths were dissected to examine the external and internal genitalic features and the terminology for naming various genitalic parts given by Klots (1970) was followed. The DNA was extracted from the preserved moth samples using the phenol-chloroform-isoamyl alcohol method given by Sambrook et al. (1989). The mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene was amplified using the universal primer pair under standard PCR conditions (Folmer et al. 1994).

Forward –

(LCO1490: 5’-GGTCAACAAATCATAAAGATATTGG-3’)

Reverse –

(HC02198: 5’-TAAACTTCAGGGTGACCAAAAAATCA-3’)

The purified PCR products were sequenced at Amnion Biosciences Pvt. Ltd, Sequencing Dept, #112, Doddenna  industrial  area, 16A  Cross, Vishwaneedam  post (D), Bangalore, Karnataka 560091, India.

The sequences were submitted to Genbank for accession numbers as Gazalina chrysolopha MH795522 & Gazalina apsara MH790288. Multiple sequence alignment was performed with CLUSTAL x software and a phylogenetic tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method (ML) in MEGA (version 6) software. The confidence level of each branch was evaluated through bootstrap analysis with 1000 replicates (Tamura et al. 2021).

 

Systematic Account

 

Genus Gazalina Walker 1865

Walker, 1865, List Spec. Lepid. Insects Colln. Brit. Mus., 32: 298; Swinhoe, 1922, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., 9(9)10 (58): 472.

Oligoclona Felder, 1874, Reis. Freg. Nov., 2: pl. 94.

Ansonia Kiriakoff, 1967, in Wytsman, Genera Insect., 217(B): 57.

Type Species: Gazalina apsara (Moore) = venosata Walker

Distribution: India; China.

Diagnosis: Medium-sized moths, usually white in colouration. Labial palpi extremely minute. Antennae bipectinate in males, serrate in females, and pectinations are reduced at the distal end. Forewing with ground colour white, without any distinct markings; discal cell more than half the length of the wing, closed; 1A+2A basally forked; 3A absent; Cu1 and M3 from lower angle of cell; M2 from lower angle of cell; M1 just above the middle of discocellulars; R5 from the upper angle of cell; R4-R2 stalked from the upper angle of cell; R1 well before upper angle of cell; Sc from the base of wing not reaching the apex. Hindwing without any distinct markings; discal cell more than half the length of wing, closed; Cu1 and M3 from near lower angle of cell; M2 from near middle of discocellulars; M1 and Rs stalked from upper angle of cell. Legs dressed with white scales; fore-tibia with an epiphysis, mid-tibia with one pair of tibial spurs; hind-tibia with two pairs of tibial spurs. Abdomen slender, banded with black and white scales; distal segments fringed with long white scales in males, distinct golden anal tuft in females. Male genitalia with uncus of moderate size, gnathos represented by conjoined, triangular processes; saccus absent; juxta well developed; valva simple, basal half broad, distal half narrow; aedeagus of moderate size, vesica without any distinct cornuti. Female with corpus bursae globular; signum absent; ductus bursae narrow, medially constricted; apophysis of moderate length, both pairs with equal length with dilated tips; papilla analis prominent, setosed; pseudo-papillae indistinct; sterigmatic plate well developed.

 

Gazalina chrysolopha (Kollar, 1844)

Liparis chrysolopha Kollar, 1844, Hügel Kaschmir und Das Reich der Siek, 4: 470.

Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar: Hampson, 1892, MothsIndia, 1: 469; Swinhoe, 1922, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (9) 10 (58): 472; Wu, 1999, Fauna Sinica, 31: 832.

Dasychira antica Walker, 1855, List Spec. Lepid. Insects Colln. Brit. Mus., 4: 867; Swinhoe, 1922, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (9) 10 (58):472.

Oligoclona chordigera Felder, 1874, Reis. Freg. Nov. 2 (4): 94.

Type Locality: Kashmir, India

Wing Expanse: Male: 40–46 mm; Female: 52–60 mm.

Body Length: Male: 14–19 mm; Female: 18–21 mm.

Diagnosis: Forewing whitish, veins distinct with black scales beyond the medial oblique line; vein M1 not stalked with radial veins. Male genitalia with uncus notched distally; juxta with distal end notched; distal end of valva rounded and produced. Internal male genitalic organs with testis rounded; seminal vesicle-I originating from testis separately; seminal vesicle-II sickle-shaped; ductus ejaculatorius duplex curled; accessory glands free distally; primary simplex divided into three sections. Internal female genitalic organs with eggs rounded, covered by a thin translucent sheath; accessory gland ducts long.

Description: Head with vertex and frons clothed with white scales. Labial palpi fringed with black scales. Antennae with scape covered with white scales, flagellum black. Thorax, collar, and tegula dressed with yellowish-white scales; underside white. Legs dressed with white scales. Abdomen slender, furnished with black scales with white bands; distal segments fringed with long white scales; distinct golden anal tuft in females. Hindwing white. Forewing (Image 1) with Cu2 beyond two-thirds of cell; Cu1 from well before lower angle of cell; M3 from lower angle of cell; M2 from middle of discocellulars; M1 from upper angle of cell; R5-R3 well stalked from upper angle of cell; R2 absent; R1 beyond three-fourth of cell; Sc from base of wing, not reaching to apex. Hindwing (Image 2) with Cu2 from well beyond two-thirds of the cell; Cu1 from well before the lower angle of the cell; M3 from the lower angle of the cell; M2 from well above the middle of discocellulars; M1 and Rs well stalked from upper angle of cell; Sc+R1 from base of wing anastomosing at one-third of cell reaching till apex of wing.

Male genitalia (Image 3–7): Uncus of moderate size, basal half broad, distal end notched giving bifid appearance, setosed and more sclerotized; gnathos represented by well-sclerotized, triangular, setosed paired projections; tegumen U-shaped, moderately sclerotized, both arms of equal width, longer than vinculum; vinculum V-shaped, weakly sclerotized, without any distinct saccus; juxta moderately sclerotized, medially dilated on lateral sides, distal end notched. Valva simple, broad, rounded; moderately sclerotized; setosed; distal end produced on costal side with round, setosed tip. Aedeagus long, narrow; proximal half flap-like; ductus ejaculatorius entering under this flap; distal half tubular; distal end produced with an extension having serrations; walls of aedeagus near distal end with minute denticles; vesica without any distinct armature. The internal male genitalic (Image 1) attributes along with the morphometric analysis have been studied in detail (Table 1).

Female genitalia (Image 8–9): Corpus bursae large, circular, membranous; signum absent; ductus bursae membranous, narrow, entering into well sclerotized oblong antrum; ductus seminalis originating from the middle of ductus bursae; apophysis of moderate length, semi-sclerotized, posterior apophysis slightly longer than anterior apophysis, both pairs with prominently dilated apices; papilla analis ovoid, well setosed with short and long setae; sterigmatic plate rectangular, notched medially, well sclerotized. The internal genitalic (Image 2) details are tabulated in Table 2.

Material examined: India: Himachal Pradesh: Baijnath, 998m, 32.052°N & 76.648°E, 09.x.2013, 1♂; Baila, 1,520 m, 31.056°N &  76.831°E,  04.vi.2014, 1♂; Basantpur, 2,148 m, 31.208°N & 77.174°E, 09.vii.2013, 1♂; 10.vii.2013, 7♂♂, 8♀♀; Dalhousie, 1,970 m, 32.587°N & 75.971°E, 07.vi.2013, 1♂, 2♀♀; Dilman, 1,552 m, 30.824°N & 77.134°E, 11.viii.2013, 12♀♀; 03.ix.2015, 4♂♂, 2♀♀; Fagu, 2,533 m, 31.085°N & 77.300°E, 04.ix.2016, 4♂♂, 3♀♀; Habban, 2,063 m, 30.915°N & 77.325°E, 07.vii.2014, 1♀; 07.ix.2015, 4♂♂, 4♀♀; Hadsar, 2,300 m, 32. 455°N & 76.613°E , 11.vi.2013, 1♂; Khajjiar, 1,920 m, 32.555°N & 76.065°E, 08.vi.2013, 1♂; Kharouth, 1,300 m, 32.065°N & 76.450°E, 09.vi.2017, 5♂♂, 3♀♀; Naina Tikkar, 1,552 m, 30.804°N & 77.119°E, 01.09.2015, 4♂♂, 4♀♀; Narkanda, 2,708 m, 31.257°N & 77.460°E, 17.vi.2013, 1♂; Nauni, 1,275 m, 30.860°N & 77.173°E, 07.viii.2013, 1♀; Sabathu, 1,265 m, 30.975°N & 76.990°E, 09.viii.2013, 1♂; 15.vii.2016, 4♂♂, 2♀♀; Serighat, 1,520 m, 31.050°N & 77.069°E, 10.viii.2013, 54♂♂, 10♀♀; 26.vi.2017, 5♂♂, 5♀♀; Theog, 1,965 m, 31.118°N & 77.359°E, 20.vi.2014, 1♂, 1♀; 08.ix.2016, 4♂♂, 3♀♀; Jammu & Kashmir: Batote, 1,560 m, 33.121°N & 75.32°E,11.vii.2014, 1♀; Hote, 400 m, 32.825°N & 75.641°E, 04.ix.2013, 2♀♀, Lamberi, 336 m, 33.130°N & 74.260°E, 11.ix.2013, 1♂, 2♀♀. Coll.: Gagan Bali & Navkiran Kaur.

Distribution: India: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim, West Bengal; China.

Comments: Kollar (1844) originally described this species under the genus Liparis Ochsenheimer from Kashmir. Hampson (1892) transferred it to the present genus. Haruta (1993) collected crysolopha Kollar from Godawari (1,600 m) southeastern Kathmandu. During another expedition, the species was recorded from Dagchu (2,880 m) and Jin (2,340 m) in eastern Nepal (Haruta, 1994). Shah et al. (2017) reported this species from West Bengal. Chettri et al. (2021) enlisted Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar from the Tadong region of Sikkim under the family Notodontidae. Dewan et al. (2022) recorded chrysolopha Kollar in the Trans Himalayan region of western Nepal and placed it under the family Notodontidae.

 

Gazalina apsara (Moore, 1859)

Dasychira apsara Moore, 1859, Cat. Lepid. Ins. Mus. Nat., 2: 341.

Gazalina apsara Moore: Hampson, 1892, Moths India, 1: 468-469; Swinhoe, 1922, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (9) 10 (58): 472; Wu, 1999, Fauna Sinica, 31: 830–832.

Gazalina venosata Walker, 1865, List. Spec. Lepid. Insects Colln. Brit. Mus., 32: 398; Swinhoe, 1922, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (9) 10 (58): 472.

Oligoclona nervosa Felder and Rogenhofer, 1875; Reis. Freg. Nov., 2(4): 95.

Type Locality: Northern India.

Wing Expanse: Male: 40–42 mm; Female: 54 mm.

Body Length: Male: 14–17 mm; Female: 19–21 mm.

Diagnosis: Forewing whitish, veins without black scales; vein M1 stalked with radial veins from the upper angle of the cell. Male genitalia with uncus having a curved hook-like distal end; juxta with distal end curved; distal end of valva beaked. Internal male genitalic organs with testis ellipsoidal; seminal vesicle-I originating from the testis in the fused state; seminal vesicle-II spindle-shaped; ductus ejaculatorius duplex comma-shaped; accessory glands fused distally; primary simplex divided into four sections. Internal female genitalic organs with eggs are rectangular, without any covering; accessory gland ducts are small.

Description: Head with vertex and frons clothed with white scales. Labial palpi fringed with black scales. Antennae with scape covered with white scales, flagellum black. Thorax, collar, and tegula dressed with yellowish-white scales; underside white. Legs dressed with white scales. Abdomen slender, furnished with black scales with white bands; distal segments fringed with long white scales; distinct golden anal tuft in females. Hindwing white. Forewing (Image 10) with Cu2 from beyond two-thirds of cell; Cu1 well before lower angle of cell; M3 from lower angle of cell; M2 just above middle of discocellulars; M1, R5-R3 stalked from upper angle of cell; R2 absent; R1 well before upper angle of cell; Sc from base of wing, not reaching apex. Hindwing (Image 11) with Cu2 from well before two-thirds of the lower angle of the cell; Cu1 from well before the lower angle of the cell; M3 from lower angle of cell; M2 from well above middle of discocellulars; M1 and Rs well stalked from upper angle of cell; Sc+R1 from base of wing anastomosing with cell well before its middle.

Male genitalia (Image 12–16): Uncus small, basal half oval, distal half narrow, curved, hook-like, dorsally setosed with short setae, well sclerotized; gnathos represented by small, conjoined triangular processes, setosed with short setae; tegumen moderately sclerotized, both arms dilated laterally beyond middle towards vinculum; vinculum moderately sclerotized, narrow, without distinct saccus; juxta large, oblong, dome-shaped, well sclerotized, distal end having a well sclerotized nearly squarish, curved projection. Valva simple, well sclerotized, basal half broad, saccular margin produced, setosed, distal half narrow, distal end produced on dorsal margin giving weakly bifid appearance. Aedeagus of moderate length, well sclerotized; proximal half flap-like; distal end bifid, one wedge-shaped and other with prominent serrations on inner margins; vesica without any distinct cornuti. The internal male genitalic (Figure 3) attributes along with the morphometric analysis have been summarized in Table 3.

Female genitalia (Image 17–18): Corpus bursae globular, membranous; signum absent; ductus bursae membranous, narrow, medially constricted; ductus seminalis originating from the middle of ductus bursae; antrum well sclerotized, nearly squarish; apophysis of moderate length, almost of equal length, prominently dilated at distal end; papilla analis prominent, broad, well setosed with long and short setae; pseudo-papillae not distinct; sterigmatic plate large, prominently developed. The internal genitalic (Figure 4) details are given in the tabulated form (Table 4).

Material examined: India: Himachal Pradesh: Basantpur, 2,148 m, 31.208°N & 77.174°E,  10.vii.2013, 1♂; Cheog, 2,086 m, 31.068°N & 77.312°E, 05.ix.2016, 4♂♂, 3♀♀; Fagu, 2,533 m, 31.085°N & 77.300°E, 03.ix.2016, 3♂♂, 4♀♀; Ghoond, 2,086 m, 31.075°N & 77.425°E, 01.ix.2016, 4♂♂, 3♀♀; Jhumar, 2,133 m, 32.548°N & 76.146°E,11.vii.2015, 6♂♂, 3♀♀; Mahasu, 2,086 m, 31.100°N & 77.504°E, 30.viii.2016; 3♂♂, 2♀♀; Narkanda, 1,265 m, 31.257°N & 77.460°E, 17.vi.2013, 1♀; Serighat, 1,520 m, 31.050°N & 77.069°E, 11.viii.2013, 1♂, 4♀♀; 25.vi.2017, 4♂♂, 3♀♀; Jammu & Kashmir: Lamberi, 336 m, 33.130°N & 74.260°E, 11.ix.2017, 1♀. Coll.: Gagan Bali & Navkiran Kaur.

Distribution: India: Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Sikkim; China.

Comments: Moore (1859) described this species under the genus Dasychira Stephens from northernIndia. Hampson (1892) shifted it in the present genus and placed Gazalina venosata Walker under it. This placement remained stable.

 

Phylogenetic Analysis

For the construction of the phylogenetic tree related to known species of the genus Gazalina Walker, the nucleotide sequences from the present study and the sequences retrieved from the NCBI database were used (Table 1). The nucleotide sequences for the Gazalina transversa (Moore) are not available in the NCBI database and thus not included. Multiple sequence alignment was performed with CLUSTAL x software and a phylogenetic tree was constructed using the maximum likelihood method (ML) in MEGA (version 6) software. The high posterior probabilities depicted the confidence of each branch in the phylogenetic tree. A confidence bootstrap value of 100 was observed for Gazalina chrysolopha (MH795522.1); Gazalina chrysolopha (HQ991385.1) and Gazalina apsara (KX863079.1). The phylogenetic tree obtained from the nucleotide sequences belonging to genera of Notodontidae family and subfamily Lymantriinae depicts that the genus Gazalina Hübner has a close relationship with the two mentioned taxa and thus has been taxonomically interchanging places between the two.

For strong validation of the molecular analysis, three different phylogenetic trees were constructed using three different genera, i.e., Phalera Hübner, Cerura Schrank, and Clostera Samouelle of the family Notodontidae as out groups. The trees (Figure 5–8) with outgroup as Phalera bucephala (MN696381) and Clostera restitura (OR064768) provide a vague analysis as outgroups merge within the clades formed by the other sequences. While the outgroup Cerura vinula (MN696387) formed a separate clade with Epicoma melanosticta (GU929763) having a significant bootstrap value of 100.

 

 

Discussion

 

Walker (1865) established this genus with venosata Walker (apsara Moore) as its type species from North-India under family Lymantriidae. The taxonomic position of genus Gazalina Walker remained ambiguous due to its continuous reshuffling between subfamily Lymantriidae of family Erebidae and family Notodontidae.

Gardner (1943) recorded secondary setae on the mandibles of Thaumetopoea cheela Moore (Thaumetopoeinae) and Godfrey (1984) noted the presence of two distinct mandibular setae in Dudusinae. But in genus Gazalina Walker, the mandibular setae are altogether absent (Gardner, 1943). The presence or absence of these setae can also be utilized for stabilizing the systematic position of the present genus. Kiriakoff (1970) considered the subfamily Thaumetopoeinae of processionary moths as a self-standing family, i.e., Thaumetopoeidae. The rank of Thaumetopoeinae, whether it is a subfamily or it receives a family status, had been a long controversy till Miller (1911) concluded to give it the subfamily rank. On the basis of cladistic analysis, he considered it as a homogeneous clade within Notodontidae. Schintlmeister (2008) in his work to recognize Thaumetopoeidae as a distinct family due to its probable link with Lymantriidae. But, he did not give the basis on morphological cladistics or molecular phylogeny to his notion. Zahiri et al. (2010) also recognized this subfamily well nested within Notodontidae based on molecular phylogeny. The subfamily Thaumetopoeinae is composed of approximately 100 species in 20 genera occurring in Africa (including Madagascar), the Mediterranean, Europe, Asia, and Australasia in a belt from the Middle East to Taiwan, New Caledonia, and Australia (Schintlmeister, 2013). Kobayashi & Nonaka (2016) analysed the 28S ribosomal RNA genes to infer molecular phylogeny and recognized ten subfamilies in the family Notodontidae. They discussed the genus Gazalina Walker under subfamily Thaeumatopoeinae. On the basis of morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses of the group, Basso (2017) identified three major clades in subfamily Thaumetopoeinae. The first clade includes the Australian genera Epicoma Hübner and Ochrogaster Stephens and possibly seven other still unexplored genera, for a total of 30 known species. The second clade includes the African genera Anaphe Walker, Epanaphe Aurivillius, Hypsoides Butler, Paradrallia Bethune-Baker, and five other genera, for a total of 55 species. The third clade includes the African, Asian, and European genera Gazalina Walker and Thaumetopoea Hübner for a total of 18 species. The species within the third clade (Gazalina spp. and Thaumetopoea spp.) are associated with economically important trees such as Fagaceae (oaks, Quercus), Pinaceae (pines, Pinus) and Anacardiaceae (pistachio, Pistacia) and can occasionally occur at high densities (outbreaks) in the northern part of their range, such as the Mediterranean basin and Europe for Thaumetopoea (Battisti et al. 2015) and the Himalaya foothills for Gazalina (Rahman & Chaudhry 1992). Battisti et al. (2017) talked about the traits which are shared by all species in this subfamily, most notably is the presence of urticating setae on larvae, adults, or both. The eggs are laid in clusters, and larvae are gregarious during the entire larval stage. In most species of processionary moths, the larvae build silken tents, from which they forage for food in a typical head-to-tail procession. This behaviour of moving in procession has been documented for all the species of these three clades of this subfamily.

The Co I sequence of Gazalina chrysolopha (MH795522) and Gazalina apsara (MH790288) from the present study were compared with the available reference sequences in Genbank maintained by NCBI by using BLAST. The BLAST results showed 86% similarity of Gazalina apsara with sequence (KX863079) from Pakistan and more than 96% similarity of Gazalina chrysolopha with sequence (HQ991385) submitted by Ashfaq et al. (2017) from Pakistan which signifies the geographic proximity. The interesting fact is that these sequences also showed more proximity with different genera of the subfamily Lymnatriinae and supported the ambiguous placement of the genus Gazalina Walker under Notodontidae. For example, the comparison of obtained sequences with sequences of species of three different genera namely Epicoma Hübner, Axiocleta Turner, and Aglaossoma Walker referable to the subfamily Thaumetopoeinae of the family Notodontidae and three different genera, i.e., Artaxa Walker, Lymantria Hübner, and Naroma Walker of the subfamily Lymantriinae, the similarity index lies between 80–84 % with Thaumetopoeinae of the family Notodontidae and more than 84% with the subfamily Lymantriinae of the family Erebidae (Table 5).

This suggested that the genus Gazalina Walker can be placed under the subfamily Lymantriinae on the basis of molecular analysis. As far as behavioral aspects are concerned, the adult moths referable to the genus Gazalina Walker show no movements with disturbance and feign dead similar to that of typical lymantrids. The adult moth possesses distinct anal tuft which is a characteristic feature of adults of subfamily Lymantriinae. The external morphological characters including genitalic features completely conform to the characterization of subfamily Lymantriinae except its wing venation which seems to be trifid. The internal genitalic studies on the basis of bulbous constrictor muscular area, small and transparent cuticular tube and its subapical entry position into aedeagus in males and presence of oval lagena and origin of ductus seminalis from middle of ductus bursae in females make both the studied species congeneric. However, these can be differentiated on the basis of certain features such as shape of testis, seminal vesicle-II, ductus ejaculatorius duplex, division of primary simplex in males and shape of eggs, utriculus and length of accessory glands in females. Though Gazalina possess a stable generic position, but its placement in a proper family still remains a taxonomic mystery and accounts for more studies and validation.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Walker (1865) established the genus Gazalina Walker with venosata Walker (apsara Moore) as its type species from northern India under family Lymantriidae. The taxonomic position of this genus remained ambiguous due to its continuous reshuffling between the subfamily Lymantriidae of the family Erebidae and the family Notodontidae. Though the sequence analysis in present study showed the proximity of its species with species of different genera of the subfamily Lymnatriinae and supported the ambiguous placement of the genus Gazalina Walker under Notodontidae. But on the basis of morphological, molecular, larval, pupal and behavioural characteristics and thorough review of previous works particularly of Kobayashi & Nonaka (2016) and Basso (2017), the genus Gazalina has been placed under the subfamily Thaeumatopoeinae of Notodontidae.

 

 

Table 1. Morphometry of internal male genitalic organs of Gazalina chrysolopha (Kollar).

 

Organ

Intraspecific range in length (mm)

Intraspecific range in width (mm)

1.

Testis

0.68–0.71

0.68–0.71

2.

Seminal vesicle- I

1.69–1.72

0.19–0.21

3.

Seminal vesicle- II

2.84–2.86

0.40–0.43

4.

Vasa deferentia

2.28–2.31

0.09–0.11

5.

Ductus ejaculatorius duplex

3.44–3.46

0.38–0.41

6.

Accessory gland

7.24–7.26

0.14–0.16

7.

Primary simplex

10.64–10.66

0.16–0.18

8.

Constrictor muscular area

1.09–1.11

0.25–0.28

9.

Cuticular tube

0.19–0.21

0.10–0.13

 

 

Table 2. Morphometry of internal female genitalic organs of Gazalina chrysolopha (Kollar).

 

Organ

Intraspecific range in length (mm)

Intraspecific range in width (mm)

1.

Testis

0.68–0.71

0.68–0.71

2.

Seminal vesicle- I

1.69–1.72

0.19–0.21

3.

Seminal vesicle- II

2.84–2.86

0.40–0.43

4.

Vasa deferentia

2.28–2.31

0.09–0.11

5.

Ductus ejaculatorius duplex

3.44–3.46

0.38–0.41

6.

Accessory gland

7.24–7.26

0.14–0.16

7.

Primary simplex

10.64–10.66

0.16–0.18

8.

Constrictor muscular area

1.09–1.11

0.25–0.28

9.

Cuticular tube

0.19–0.21

0.10–0.13

 

 

Table 3. Morphometry of internal male genitalic organs of Gazalina apsara (Moore).

 

Organ

Intraspecific range in length (mm)

Intraspecific range in width (mm)

1.

Testis

0.78–0.81

1.34–1.36

2.

Seminal vesicle– I

1.49–1.52

0.54–0.56

3.

Seminal vesicle– II

1.88–1.92

0.53–0.56

4.

Vasa deferentia

3.89–3.91

0.14–0.18

5.

Ductus ejaculatorius duplex

2.93–2.96

0.45–0.48

6.

Accessory gland

8.43–8.45

0.18–0.21

7.

Primary simplex

9.99–10.01

0.20–0.25

8.

Constrictor muscular area

0.48–0.51

0.23–0.26

9.

Cuticular tube

0.59–0.61

0.13–0.16

 

 

Table 4. Morphometry of internal female genitalic organs of Gazalina apsara (Moore).

 

Organ

Intraspecific range in length (mm)

Intraspecific range in width (mm)

1.

Common terminal filament

0.35–0.38

0.09–0.11

2.

Egg tube

13.83–13.86

0.64–0.66

3.

Pedicel

Absent

Absent

4.

Lateral oviduct

0.94–0.96

0.74–0.77

5.

Common oviduct

0.99–1.01

0.74–0.76

6.

Spermathecal gland

5.44–5.47

0.74–0.77

7.

Spermathecal duct

0.93–0.96

0.74–0.78

8.

Utriculus

0.88–0.91

0.35–0.38

9.

Lagena

0.09–0.11

0.08–0.11

10.

Infundibulum

0.09–0.12

0.74–0.76

11.

Corpus bursae

1.14–1.16

0.98–1.01

12.

Ductus bursae

1.18–1.21

0.64–0.66

13.

Ostium bursae

0.14–0.17

0.34–0.36

14.

Ductus seminalis

1.64–1.66

0.11–0.14

15.

Bulla seminalis

Absent

Absent

16.

Accessory gland reservoir duct

0.68–0.71

0.74–0.76

17.

Accessory gland reservoir

0.88–0.91

0.34–0.36

18.

Accessory gland

4.19–4.22

0.74–0.76

19.

Vestibulum

0.34–0.37

1.58–1.61

20.

Vagina

0.43–0.46

1.59–1.62

 

For figures & images - - click here for full PDF

 

References

 

Basso, A., E. Negrisollo, A. Zilli, A. Battisti & P. Ceretti (2017). A total evidence for the processionary moths of the genus Thaumetopoea (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae: Thaumetopoeinae). Cladistics 33: 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12181

Battisti, A., M. Avcı, D.N. Avtzis, M.L.B. Jamaa, L. Berardi, Battisti, A., M. Avcı, D.N. Avtzis, M.L.B. Jamaa, L. Berardi, W. Berretima, M. Branco, G. Chakali, M.A.E. Alaoui, B. Frérot, J.A. Hódar, I.I. Mălăncuş, K.  İpekdal, S. Larsson, T. Manole, Z. Mendel, N.  Meurisse, P.  Mirchev, N.   Nemer, M.R.  Paiva, J.   Pino, A.   Protasov, N.  Rahim, J.  Rousselet, H. Santos, D.  Sauvard, A.  Schopf, M. Simonato, A. Yart & M. Zamoum (2015). Natural history of the processionary moths (Thaumetopoea spp.): new insights in relation to climate change, pp. 15–80. In: Roques, A. (ed.). Processionary Moths and Climate Change: An Update. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, XVII + 427 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9340-7_2

Battisti, A., S. Larsson & A. Roques (2017). Processionary Moths and Associated Urtication Risk: Global Change–Driven Effects. Annual Review of Entomology 62: 323–342.

Bhattacharyya, K., V. Kumar & K. Chandra (2019). Preliminary account of moths (Lepidoptera) from Neora valley National Park of central Himalaya, India. Proceedings of 2nd Himalaya Reserve Consortium.

Cai, R. (1979).  Economic insect fauna of China. Lepidoptera: Notodontidae. Series No. 16. Beijing: Science Press [in Chinese], 166 pp.

Chettri, P., Y. Matsui, H. Naka & A. Tiwari (2021). Checklist of moths (Heterocera) of Tadong, Sikkim, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(12): 19837–19848. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7104.13.12.19837-19848

Folmer, O., M. Black, W. Hoeh, R. Lutz, & R. Vrijenhoek (1994). DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c  oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3(5): 294–299.

Gardner, J.C.M. (1943). Immature stages of Indian Lepidoptera. Indian Journal of Entomology 5: 89–102.

Goldfrey, L.G. (1984). Notes on the larva of Cargida pyrrha (Notodontidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists Society 38(2): 88–91.

Grunberg, K. (1912). Notodontidae, pp. 284–319. In: Seitz, A. (ed.). Macrolepidoptera of the World 2. Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart.

Gurung, L.J., K.K. Miller, S.Venn & A.B. Bryan (2021). Contributions of non-timber forest products to people in a mountain ecosystem and impacts of recent climate change. Ecosystem and People 17(1): 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2021.1957021

Gurung, H., R.K. Sitaula, P. Karki, A. Khatri, B. Khanal, S.N. Joshi, I. Maharjan & M.P. Upadhyay (2021). Sporadic summer outbreak of SHAPU in even years: Does the pattern match with the usual autumn outbreak?  American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports 24: 101198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajoc.2021.101198

Hampson, G.F. (1892). The Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, Moths - volume 1. Taylor and Francis, London, 527 pp.

Haruta, T. (ed.) (1993). Moths of Nepal, Part 2. Tinea. 13 (Supplement 3). Japan Heterocerists’ Society, Tokyo.  

Haruta, T. (ed.) (1994). Moths of Nepal, Part 3. Tinea. 14 (Supplement 1). Japan Heterocerists’ Society, Tokyo, 163 pp.

Kemal, M. & A.O. Kocak (2016). Annotated and pictorial list of the Catak Lepidoptera. Primaus (Suppl.). 41: 1–118 + 95 figs.

Khanal, B. & B.R. Shrestha (2022). Diversity,  distribution and  medical  significance of Gazalina species (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) in Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Zoology 6(S1): 45–49.

Kirby, W. (1892). A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths). Sphinges and Bombyces. A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera.1: 1–1951.

Kiriakoff, S.G. (1968). Lepidoptera, Familia Notodontidae, pars tertia, Genera Indo-Australica. In: Wytsman, P. (ed.). Genera Insectorum, Lepidoptera. Fascicle. 217c pp.

Kiriakoff, S.G. (1970). FamiliaNotodontidae, addenda et corrigenda: genera aethiopica et malgassica. In: Wytsman, P. (ed.). Genera Insectorum, Lepidoptera. Fascicle, 217a (Suppl.): 1–74.

Klots, A.B. (1970). Lepidoptera in Taxonomist’s Glossary of genitalia in Insects. Munksgaard (Copenhagen) and S-H service agency. 115–130. (Ed. S.L. Tuxen).

Kollar, V. (1844). Aufzählung und Beschreibung der von Freiherr Carl.V. Hügel auf seiner Reise Durch Kaschmir und das Himaleygebirge Gesammelten Insecten, von Vinez Kollar and Dr. Ludwig. In C.V Hügel: Kaschmir und das Reich der Siek 4(2): 470.

Kobayashi, H. & M. Nonaka (2016). Molecular  phylogeny of the Notodontidae: Subfamilies Inferred from 28S rRNA Sequences (Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea, Notodontidae). Tinea 23(1): 1–83.

Manadhar, A.A., T.P. Margolis & B. Khanal (2018). New clinical and laboratory findings of SHAPU. Nepal Journal of Ophthalmology 10(19): 23–31.

Miller, J.S. (1991). Cladistics and Classification of the Notodontidae based on Larval and adult Morphology. Bulletin of American Museum Natural History New York 204: 1–207.

Moore, F.  (1859). In Horsfield, T. and F. Moore. A Catalogue of the Lepidopterous insects in the museum at the East India House 2: 279–440.

Dewan, A., B.R. Shrestha, R.T. Magar & P. Gaudel (2022). New distribution record of Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar, 1844 (Lepidoptera: Notodontdae) in the Trans-Himalayan region of western Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa.14 (8): 21742–21744. https://doi.org/10.11609/jot.7976.14.8.21742-21744

Rahman, W.U. & M.I. Chaudhry (1992). Observations on outbreak and biology of oak defoliator, Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar. Pakistan Journal of Forestry 42: 134–137.

Raman, M.K. (1998). Outbreak of Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae) and defoliation of Alnus nepalensis in eastern and central Bhutan. Insect Environment 4: 65.

Sambrook, S.J., E.F. Fritsch & T. Maniatis (1989). Molecular Cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd Edition, . Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

Sanyal, A.K., V.P. Uniyal, K. Chandra & M. Bhardwaj (2011). Diversity and indicator species of moth (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) assemblages in different vegetation zones in Gangotri landscape,  western Himalaya, India. Envis Bulletin: Arthropods and their conservation in India (Insects and Spiders) 14(1): 114–129.

Schintlmeister, A. (2013). Notodontidae and Oenosandridae (Lepidoptera), World Catalogue of Insects, Vol. 2nd, Brill, Leiden, Netherland, 605 pp.

Shah, S.K., B. Mitra, A. Das & P. Mishra (2017). A Report on Moth Fauna (Insecta: Lepidoptera) in Neora valley, National park, West Bengal, India. Journal of Environment and Sociobiology 14(2): 179–186.

Srivastava, N. & A. Mukhopadhyay (2006). Life cycle and bioecological studies of Gazalina chrysolopha Kollar (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae), attacking major shade tree, Alnus nepalensis D.Don. of large Cardamom agroforestry of Sikkim with an annotated  list of insect fauna common to both  the plants. Journal of Hill Research 19(2): 59–64.

Sugi, S. (1994). Notodontidae  In: Haruta, T. (Ed.), Moths of Nepal. Part 3. Tinea. 14(1): 163–171. Japan Heterocerists’ Society, Tokyo.

Uniyal, V.P., P. Dey & A.K. Sanyal (2016). Diversity of moths (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) and their potential role as a conservation tool in different protected areas of Uttarakhand. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. DST Project Completion Report, 105 pp.

Walker, F. (1865). List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the Collection of the British Museum. Edward Newman, London 33: 707–1120.

Wu, C.S. & C.L. Fang (2002). Lepidoptera Notodontidae. Fauna Sinica, Insecta, vol. 31: 1–952. Science Press, Beijing.

Zahiri, R., I.J. Kitching, D. Lafontaine, M. Mutanen, L. Kaila, J.D. Holloway & N. Wahlberg (2011). A new molecular phylogenyoffers hope for a stable family level classification of the Noctuoidea (Lepidoptera). Zoologica Scripta 40: 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2010.00459