Beara nubiferella Walker, 1866, List Specimens lepid. Insects Colln Br.
Mus., 35: 1704.
Kobes, 1997: 81, syn. n.
Diagnosis. All three Bornean species are very similar in facies and are only
reliably distinguished on genitalic characters. This and the next species have
similarly dark scales on the male coremata, and a costal thorn to the valve and
a cornutus in the aedeagus vesica, but the thorn is angled basad in
nubiferella and the cornutus is small, slender. The female has a similarly
thickened, broad ductus and bursa in each, but nubiferella has a
distinctive narrow tubular pocket at the apex.
Taxonomic note. Holloway (1982) underestimated the complexity of the
situation and focused on male characters. Kobes (1997) noted sympatry of
cornuta Holloway with the species he described as milbradti. This
latter now proves on dissection of the holotype female of nubiferella, to
be a synonym thereof. The commoner species in Java and Bali that Holloway took
to be nubiferella (slides 10429, 10450, 10451, 17339) is in fact
undescribed and closely related to
Strand, though with a more rounded valve costa. A further member of this group
is B. simplex Warren from Adonara, east of Flores in the Lesser Sundas.
The Sulawesi variant of cornuta mentioned by Holloway (1982) also appears
to be a distinct species, having a long, straight cornutus in the aedeagus
vesica and a much obtuser, less thorn-like projection to the valve costa. A
Sulawesi female dissected (slide 17335) has the ductus and bursa unthickened,
but is not as in the tortriciformis Strand group.
Geographical range. Java, Sumatra, Borneo.
Habitat preference. This is possibly the commonest of the Bornean species,
but all are rare. Five specimens have been noted, all from the lowlands: one
from Kretam on the coast of Sabah, two from hill dipterocarp forest at the Danum
Valley Field Centre and two from alluvial dipterocarp forest near the foot of
Robinson et al. (2001) note host records from Ceiba (Bombacaceae)
and Tectona (Verbenaceae; Mathur, 1942), but, given the taxonomic
problems, these records should perhaps be considered at the generic level only.
to Content Page