Caloptilia cataractias

4. Caloptilia cataractias (Meyrick, 1921) (Figs 4, 62) Gracilaria cataractias Meyrick, 1921:122 Caloptilia prosticta cataractias Vári, 1961: 12 Material examined. 1♀, South Africa, Limpopo, Hoedspruit, Casketts farm, mn 13/iv/2014, pup 14/iv/2014, em 21/iv/2014, Rhynchosia minima, (rearing M773), A. & I. Sharp leg., CLV7582, slide TRB4460 ♀. Biology. Bred on Rhyncosia minima (L.) DC (Fabaceae) (Fig. 62). Vári (1961) reported R. caribaea (Jacq.) DC. In addition, two other Gracillariidae species, Porphyrosela neodoxa (Meyrick, 1916) (Oriental Region) and Caloptilia dondavisi Landry, 2006 (Neotropical), also use R. minima as their host plant. Distribution. South Africa (North-West, Gauteng, Limpopo), Namibia, Zimbabwe. DNA barcodes. DNA amplification of the specimen failed (SOURE 026-19). Remarks. Meyrick (1909b) originally described C. prosticta based on a male specimen from South Africa. Later on (1911a), he reported the species to be found in Mahè (Seychelles). In 1921, Meyrick described C. cataractias based on two specimens collected in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Vári (1961) conducted a review of the two species, identifying the host plant of C. cataractias (Rhyncosia caribaea) and expanding its distribution to Namibia. However, he concluded that “these two species are conspecific, but they can be retained as subspecies of C. prosticta.” Triberti (1987) agreed with this conclusion and reported C. prosticta s. l. The subsequent reports by Gerlach (1998) and Bippus (2019), which identified C. prosticta in the Seychelles, should be seen as a confirmation of Meyrick’s 1911a report. In 2001, Robinson et al. reported that C. prosticta feeds on two different Fabaceae plants, namely Cajanus cajan L. and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., in Sri Lanka. However, these findings need to be verified, as Robinson et al. (2005 –2011) later relocated the Vigna record from Sri Lanka to Nigeria. Triberti (2004), confirmed the presence of C. cataractias in Namibia through the study of a female specimen, noting slight differences in the female genitalia compared to C. prosticta. However, the actual taxonomic value and distribution of these two entities still raise some doubts, necessitating a detailed taxonomic analysis.