﻿An updated checklist of the wild silkmoths (Lepidoptera, Saturniidae) of Colombia

﻿Abstract In recent years, the study of wild silkmoths (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) has increased exponentially due to the intense sampling effort and the use of molecular evidence for species delimitation, which led to the description of numerous new taxa especially from the Neotropic. Given these rapid advances, the checklist of the Colombian Saturniidae needs to be updated to cover the taxonomy, distribution, and diversity of these moths in the country. After an extensive review of literature, data repositories, and collections, an updated and comprehensive list of Saturniidae from Colombia is presented, including their occurrence status in each Colombian department. The checklist includes 7 subfamilies, 55 genera, and 790 taxa (766 in species rank) of Saturniidae in Colombia. Current distribution data show that the genus Winbrechlinia, the subgenusDarylesia, 379 species, and 18 subspecies are endemic to Colombia. Moreover, a dichotomic key to the Colombian subfamilies is provided. A few taxonomic changes are proposed based on a thorough taxonomic revision of the Colombian taxa. This revision also addresses the issue of outdated species names reported in the first checklist of Colombian Saturniidae (Amarillo-Suárez 2000) and excludes old records of taxa that are considered dubious for Colombia based on new evidence. By presenting an updated list of Colombian species, including the newly described taxa, this study aims at eliminating confusion stemming from outdated names and provides a useful resource for researching and conservating Saturniidae in Colombia. We wish to offer a common reference for future studies on the biodiversity and biogeography of moths in the Neotropical realm.


Introduction
"This great diversity of entirely American groups in the Saturniidae […] suggests that the group as a whole arose in the Western Hemisphere and no doubt in the American tropics." (Michener 1952: 371) The Saturniidae, known as wild silkmoths, represent the largest family within the Bombycoidea superfamily and are found almost worldwide (Kitching et al. 2018). However, they are most diverse in the Neotropic region, where they originated (Regier et al. 2008;Rougerie et al. 2022). A global list of valid names for Saturniidae includes 3,454 species in 180 genera (Kitching et al. 2018), of which nearly 2,400 species are estimated to occur in the Neotropic (Decaëns et al. 2021). In the Neotropic, the Saturniidae family is divided into seven subfamilies: Arsenurinae, Ceratocampinae, Cercophaninae, Hemileucinae, Hirpidinae, Oxyteninae, and Saturniinae, the latter being the only cosmopolitan, while the others are exclusively from the New World (Lemaire and Minet 1998;Rougerie et al. 2022). Lemaire revised four subfamilies in America: Saturniinae (Lemaire 1978b), Arsenurinae (Lemaire 1980), Ceratocampinae (Lemaire 1988b), and Hemileucinae . Before publishing his latest three-volume monograph , he compiled a preliminary list of 921 species for the Neotropic (Lemaire 1996). Amarillo-Suárez (2000) reported a total of 183 species in the first checklist of the Colombian Saturniidae, underestimating the diversity of the Hemileucinae, which was later revised by . However, both Lemaire (1996) and Amarillo-Suárez (2000) excluded the subfamilies Cercophaninae and Oxyteninae from their checklists. These most basal subfamilies were described as families by Jordan (1924) and then assigned to Saturniidae based on morphological characters (Minet 1994), later confirmed by phylogenetic evidence (Regier et al. 2008). Furthermore, the diversity of Cercophaninae and Oxyteninae has increased enormously due to recent species descriptions (Brechlin and Meister 2014b;Brechlin et al. 2014;Brechlin 2020e, 2021j, 2021o, 2021e, 2023i). Despite the growing interest and popularity of the Saturniidae (Janzen 1984;Howse and Wolfe 2011;Meister 2011;Basset et al. 2017;Rubin et al. 2018), the literature dealing with the distribution of Colombian Saturniidae is limited. A few ecological studies included lists for specific Colombian localities: Río Ñambí Natural Reserve, Barbacoas, Nariño (Amarillo-Suárez 1997a); San José del Palmar, Chocó ; Tambito Reserve, El Tambo, Cauca (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010); Gorgona Island National Park, Guapí, Cauca (Calero-Mejía et al. 2014); and Utría National Park, Chocó (Prada-Lara et al. 2019) in the Chocó biogeographic region; Albania, Caquetá, in the Orinoquía region (Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005); and Arcabuco and Quipama, Boyacá, in the Andean region ). However, these local checklists have lost their validity due to recent taxonomic advances.
In the last decade, approximately 1,500 new species and subspecies of Saturniidae have been described globally (Kitching et al. 2018). This enormous number is mainly due to DNA studies (Hebert et al. 2003;Padial et al. 2010). Despite being controversially discussed (Will and Rubinoff 2004;Will et al. 2005;Peigler 2013), DNA barcoding is now widely recognized as a tool for revealing cryptic Lepidoptera species (Decaëns and Rougerie 2008;Vaglia et al. 2008;Gibbs 2009;Hausmann et al. 2009;Decaëns et al. 2021;Moraes et al. 2021). Today, integrative taxonomy combines morphological features, geographic distribution, COI barcode studies (Silva-Brandão et al. 2009 provide an extensive review on the subject), and nuclear markers to increase resolution (Rougerie et al. 2012). Unsurprisingly, many of the newly described Saturniidae are distributed in Colombia due to the variety of ecosystems (van der Hammen and Rangel 1997), biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al. 2000), and the recent sampling boosting, especially at high elevations, in previously inaccessible localities, given the limitations due to the control of the territory by various armed groups (Brechlin 2016f;Murillo-Sandoval et al. 2020). Since 2008, many descriptions of neotropical Saturniidae have been published in the Entomo-Satsphingia journal, including two major revisions of the genera Hylesia Hübner, 1820  and Janiodes Jordan, 1924. The most striking result was the description of the genus Winbrechlinia , endemic to the cloud forests and páramos of the Sierra Nevada of Santa Marta in northern Colombia (Brechlin 2016f, 2018m, 2020d. The geographical complexity of Colombia makes its fauna extraordinarily diverse and highly endemic (Bernal and Lynch 2008;Avendaño et al. 2021;Bota-Sierra et al. 2021;Pérez-Escobar et al. 2022). The topography is characterized by three main parallel Andean mountain ranges, known as Cordilleras, located within the "Tropical Andes" biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). The Andean region is bordered to the east by the Orinoquía and Amazon regions and to the west by the Chocó biogeographic region, another biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al. 2000). The three Andean mountain ranges are separated by the two large, major streams of Colombia, the Cauca River, which flows northward between the Western and Central Cordilleras, and the Magdalena River, which divides the Central and Eastern Cordilleras. After emerging from the Colombian Massif, these two rivers join and descend to the Caribbean Sea. On the Caribbean's margin there is the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, whose highest elevations are the tallest peaks (5775 m) in Colombia. This more recently formed area (Gómez et al. 2021) is also an essential hotspot of biodiversity that hosts many endemic species (Myers et al. 2000;Brechlin 2016f). The geological history of Colombia has allowed the discontinuous isolation of species, favoring allopatric speciation (Vargas et al. 2023) through the increase in the availability of new niches (Purser 2015;Hazzi et al. 2018). Notably, páramos have been described as "islands" with flickering connectivity (Flantua et al. 2019) and the fastest diversification rate (Madriñán et al. 2013). For these geographical reasons, Colombia probably has one of the most diverse and endemic Saturniidae faunas in tropical America (Lemaire and Venedictoff 1989;Decaëns and Rougerie 2008;Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021).
In light of the advances made in the last two decades, the first checklist of the Colombian Saturniidae (Amarillo-Suárez 2000) is outdated. No systematic work has been carried out to date to review the taxonomy and distribution of the Colombian Saturniidae taxa, considering the contributions of checklists for some specific Colombian localities and including the vast cryptic diversity revealed by the use of DNA barcoding and the recent tremendous sampling effort. At the subfamilies level, the diversity of Cercophaninae and Oxyteninae has previously been underestimated since the contribution of these subfamilies is reviewed here for the first time, taking as a starting point the preliminary checklist by Comoglio and Brechlin (2021). Likewise, considering the separation of Hirpidinae from Hemileucinae (Rougerie et al. 2022), updating the taxonomic key for subfamilies is necessary. This work aims to present an updated checklist of the known Saturniidae from Colombia, considering the many new descriptions and revalidation of taxa, and to clarify the taxonomic confusion that these taxonomic advances may have produced. An updated dichotomous key was also elaborated for the subfamilies distributed in the country. Furthermore, a few taxonomic changes are proposed and discussed, following the criteria of delimitation of species currently used in the literature Meister 2011a, 2011c;Brechlin et al. 2016a;Bénéluz 2021;Brechlin 2022i). Based on an extensive review of literature, data repositories, and collections, this checklist is the first one for Colombia (published on 6 August 2021 as a preprint) which also includes the subfamilies Cercophaninae and Oxyteninae, and that extensively covers the Hemileucinae. Species and subspecies considered endemic for the country are highlighted here, thanks to an extensive review of the distribution data of all the Neotropical taxa considered in this study. Taxa excluded from our Colombian checklist are discussed in detail, comparing the present knowledge with the old records found in the literature. In addition, taxa with potential distribution in Colombia, but whose presence has not been confirmed yet, are discussed on the basis of their current distribution data. After the preprint of this study (Comoglio and Brechlin 2021) was made available, another checklist of the Colombian Saturniidae was published by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021), whose results are thoroughly reviewed here.

Materials and methods
This checklist is mainly the product of recent sampling efforts, which have led to the description of many Saturniidae taxa for Colombia, and a literature review of articles, species descriptions, taxonomic revisions, and records available on BOLD (Hebert and Ratnasingham 2007) until 15 June 2023. In addition, both authors contributed with data from the collections they are currently curating to add new records which have not been previously published elsewhere. The first author examined specimens in the Entomological Collection of the "C.J. Marinkelle" Natural History Museum, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia (ANDES-E). The second author conducted a comprehensive review of his Research Collection, Pasewalk, Germany (CRBP), which includes type material of more than 530 Colombian taxa and is extensively barcoded ("BC-RBP" in BOLD). The specimens deposited in the main national collections, such as the Institute of Natural Sciences, National University of Colombia, Bogotá (ICN-MHN); the "Francisco Luis Gallego" Entomological Museum, National University of Colombia, Medellín (MEFLG); the Javeriano Museum of Natural History "Lorenzo Uribe, S.J.", Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá (MPUJ), and the National Taxonomic Collection of Insects "Luis María Murillo", Mosquera (CTNI), were examined by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), Clavijo-Giraldo and Uribe (2019), and Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021). However, some of these collection records are provided ignoring the current nomenclature that is extensively reviewed and discussed in this paper. Some interesting records are found in the entomological collection of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute, Villa de Leyva, Colombia (IAvH-E), and have DNA barcodes in BOLD for some additional taxa. Barcodes are essential for the verifiable identification of specimens, especially those belonging to species complexes (Decaëns and Rougerie 2008;Decaëns et al. 2021). The implications of using raw data available in repositories without curation or expert identification, such as some records shown in Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021), have been debatable (Zizka et al. 2020) and are also discussed in this work, which is also a tool to improve the identification of Colombian Saturniidae taxa.
The dichotomous key to subfamilies covers only Colombian species (e.g., Janiodes species for the Cercophaninae). It is based on morphological studies of adults achieved by Michener (1952) and Lemaire and Minet (1998), with the addition of the analysis of the adult morphology of the Arsenurinae (de Camargo et al. 2009), Ceratocampinae (Balcázar-Lara and Wolfe 1997), Cercophaninae (Jordan 1924;Minet 1994), Hemileucinae , and Hirpidinae (Rougerie et al. 2022). The morphological characters used in the literature were systematized and corroborated by direct examination of the specimens in the reviewed collections. Finally, an updated dichotomous key for Colombia was created, modifying the last global subfamily key presented by Lemaire and Minet (1998) and including the recently described subfamily Hirpidinae (Rougerie et al. 2022).

Results
A total of 843 specimens in ANDES-E and more than 15,000 specimens in CRBP were examined, and 2,854 barcodes of Colombian Saturniidae specimens were retrieved from BOLD. To show the updated checklist, it is necessary to propose some taxonomic changes that are summarized here and then discussed, compared with previous studies, and interpreted in light of the criteria currently used to delimit species. An identification key for the 7 Saturniidae subfamilies distributed in Colombia is also presented as a result of this review. An updated national list for the family is then presented, including  Checklist Table 2. Main checklist of Colombian Saturniidae. Endemic (End.) species or subspecies are marked with a plus sign (+) or a section sign ( §), respectively. Distribution data are given for each Colombian department. Occurrence records marked with a question mark (?) were found in the literature and considered doubtful since recent samplings could not confirm them. Those taxa with their type locality in Colombia are shown with their primary evidence labeled as "TL". The additional evidence is mostly barcode numbers that refer to "Sample ID" in BOLD and are provided for most taxa, especially for type specimens and the most taxonomically cryptic species group. Many records refer to specimens found in ANDES-E and/or CRBP collections. References for old records that have been found in the literature are also provided.

Discussion
We discuss the taxonomic changes proposed in this review, the current distribution of some Colombian taxa, taxa excluded from the updated checklist, and those with potential distribution in Colombia but not yet confirmed for the country. Finally, the results of the previous checklists of the Colombian Saturniidae are contrasted and discussed. Racheli and Racheli (1998) described a subspecies of Arsenura thomsoni Schaus, 1906 that is now raised to full species status: Arsenura lemairei L. Racheli & T. Racheli, 1998, stat. nov. It is possible to separate this taxon from thomsoni by external morphology: the outer hindwing margins are smoother in A. thomsoni and notched in A. lemairei. The two species also have different distributions. Only A. lemairei was found in Colombia, in the eastern plains (Cn), and it was also reported in northwestern Brazil, northeastern Ecuador (Racheli and Racheli 2006), and northern Peru (type locality: Loreto). In contrast, A. thomsoni is a Guiano-Amazonian species distributed in the Guianas (type locality: Omai, Guyana), Venezuela, and northern Brazil (Lemaire 1980). Molecular evidence also supports this taxonomic change since there is a minimum p-distance of 4.33% between the BINs clustering A. thomsoni (BIN BOLD:AAC8188) and A. lemairei (BIN BOLD:AAC0236). Lemaire (1980) divided Copiopteryx semiramis (Cramer, 1775) into seven subspecies that range from Mexico to Bolivia. Copiopteryx semiramis banghaasi Draudt, 1930 is known from Central America (Mexico to Nicaragua) and was distinguished by Lemaire (1980: 167) as "easily recognizable by the much paler, yellowish brown, ground color than in all the previous subspecies." Given the distribution and morphological features provided for C. s. banghaasi, Copiopteryx banghaasi Draudt, 1930, stat. nov. is raised to full species status now. Additionally, according to these new results, the taxon C. semiramis andensis is found to be a subspecies of C. banghaasi and finally treated as Copiopteryx banghaasi andensis (Lemaire, 1974), comb. nov. In summary, three taxa of the genus Copiopteryx are distributed in Colombia: C. banghaasi andensis comb. nov. is mainly found in western Colombia (An, Ch, and Vl), but also in By and St; C. jehovah is reported for Ca, Cn, and Pu; and C. semiramis semiramis is found in southeastern Colombia (Ca, Cu, and Me).

Taxonomic changes
Grammopelta lineata (Schaus, 1906) was reported for By, Ca, Ch, Cu, and Vl (Lemaire 1980;Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003bDecaëns et al. , 2007, but this species should be restricted to the Guianan region only. Grammopelta cervina Rothschild, 1907, stat. rev. is here reinstated to species status, with its type locality in the southeastern Peruvian department of Puno (Carabaya). This species is now considered to be distributed in the Andean region, from Bolivia to Colombia. Besides biogeographic reasons, the Guianan G. lineata is relatively smaller than the Andean G. cervina, as recognized by Lemaire (1980: 185). Molecular evidence reveals the existence of three BINs, currently identified as G. lineata on BOLD, but here treated as follows. The BIN BOLD:AAC5835 is clustering the actual G. lineata from French Guiana, with a minimum p-distance of 4.86%. At the same time, the BINs BOLD:AAC5833 (Bolivia: La Paz, Peru: Madre de Dios, and Brazil: Pará) and BOLD:AAC5834 (Colombia: Boyacá and Ecuador), with a minimum p-distance of 2.26% and 2.91%, respectively, now refer to G. cervina, stat. rev. It must be noted that the latter BIN (BOLD:AAC5834) refers to the invalid G. convergens (Bouvier, 1928), which is currently a synonym of G. cervina. With its type locality in Colombia (Bogotá), this taxon could also be treated as a subspecies of G. cervina, but no taxonomic change is formally made here.
In addition, Rhescyntis norax Druce, 1897, stat. nov. is removed from its subspecies status with R. hippodamia Druce, 1897 and now raised to full species status. The distribution of R. norax ranges from Mexico to western Colombia and western Ecuador. Consequently, we recognize R. h. colombiana Bouvier, 1927, syn. nov. as a subjective junior synonym of R. norax. Both species, R. hippodamia and R. norax, can be found in Colombia: R. hippodamia in the Amazon region (Am, Ca, and Pu) and R. norax, which tends to be larger, in western Colombia (Ch, Na, Ri, and Vl). Thus, the old records for Ch, Na, and Vl of R. hippodamia Bathyphlebia gschwandneri Schawerda, 1925 was considered a junior subjective synonym of B. aglia C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874by Lemaire (1976b. Because of external differences and features in the male genitalia Bathyphlebia aglia gschwandneri Schawerda, 1925, stat. nov. is here treated as a subspecies of B. aglia. This change mainly stems from its extreme phenotype with a broad white shadow after the black postmedian line, as figured in Naumann et al. (2009: figs 4, 5). It was also noted that "the transverse rugae of the uncus are much weaker" in B. a. gschwandneri, stat. nov. than in B. a. aglia (Oiticica Filho and Michener 1950a). Rothschild, 1907 was previously considered a synonym of R. orizaba equatorialis Rothschild, 1907by Lemaire (1975. Brechlin and Meister (2012c) raised the latter to species status with its synonym bogotana. However, we again treat Rothschildia equatorialis bogotana Rothschild, 1907, stat. rev., comb. nov. as a subspecies, but now of R. equatorialis with its type locality in Bogotá, Cu. The nominate subspecies is found in western Colombia, with its synonym R. cauca Rothschild, 1907.

Rothschildia orizaba bogotana
There are taxonomic confusions within the species group of Copaxa descrescens sensu Brechlin and Meister (2010b). Three species of this group were reported in western Colombia: C. niepelti Draudt, 1929 (type locality: West Colombia, [Valle del Cauca, Dagua], Bellavista), C. ignescens Lemaire, 1978 (type locality: Valle del Cauca, [Dagua, El Queremal, Cerro] Tokio), and C. troetschi Druce, 1886 (type locality: Panama, Chiriquí). Lemaire (1975) treated C. niepelti as a synonym of C. decrescens Walker, 1855, but the latter is restricted to Brazil. Brechlin and Meister (2012d) reinstated C. niepelti as a species and synonymized C. ignescens with the latter. In a conservative way, Copaxa ignescens Lemaire, 1978, stat. rev. is here reinstated to species status. According to genitalia comparison and new molecular studies of material collected near the type locality of C. ignescens, there seems to be a great possibility that C. witti Brechlin, Käch & Meister, 2013 could be a synonym of C. ignescens. Broader distribution is recognized for C. troetschi, and according to preliminary DNA barcoding results, C. niepelti could be a synonym of C. troetschi. To avoid further confusion, in the checklist, this issue is treated as follows: C. witti is very likely a synonym of C. ignescens with its distribution in the Western Cordillera of Colombia (Ch, Na, and Vl) and western Ecuador; C. niepelti is probably a synonym of C. troetschi, and it is widely distributed in Colombia: By, Ce, Cu, Gj, Hu, Ma, St, To, and Vl. However, all names have been preserved, and no synonymy is here formally proposed. The old record for C. ignescens in Cc (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010) could not be verified due to the cryptic diversity within this species group. The specimens identified as C. ignescens in the literature (Amarillo-Suárez 1997b could not be examined and have no DNA barcodes. Further studies are necessary to clear the correct identifications and boundaries between these closely related species.

Remarks on the checklist
In this checklist (Table 2), the distribution of each taxon is represented by the departments of Colombia where they are found, but this can be ambiguous in some cases since the departments are administrative subdivisions and not geographical units. Consequently, the presence of a given taxon in e.g., Ri may mean it occurs in the Central Cordillera and/or Western Cordillera. Caution should be exercised when extrapolating biogeographic data, as a taxon reported for example from Pu could indicate that it is Andean or Amazonian.
It should be noted that some distribution data reported in the literature are considered doubtful based on recent sampling and taxonomic advances. For example, high-altitude species are restricted to very narrow distribution ranges, while only a few lowland species are considered polytopic and can be found in both eastern and western Colombia. However, the old records could not be verified by direct examination. It must be pointed out that this could prove fruitless if only the external morphology is compared without integrating molecular evidence. The distribution of at least the following taxa, listed in alphabetic order, presents some issues that need to be discussed in depth.
Adeloneivaia acuta (Schaus, 1896) was reported for Ch by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species appears to be restricted to northern and eastern Colombia. Adelowalkeria caeca Lemaire, 1969 was reported for St by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species is distributed in western Colombia. The old record likely refers to A. winbrechlini. Antheraea (Telea) godmani columbiana (Draudt, 1930) is here considered as a valid subspecies name since it has been revived by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 194) and thus removed from its synonymy with A. godmani (Druce, 1892). However, during this work, specimens from Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia were examined without finding significant or repeated morphological differences between the geographic populations; and neither between the barcodes. Arsenura armida (Cramer, 1779) was reported for An, By, Ca, Cn, Cu, Ma, Me, Pu, and To departments by Amarillo-Suárez (2000) and Decaëns et al. (2007), but several new taxa were described within this species group (Brechlin and Meister 2010g). The distribution of A. armida is restricted to the Guianan region and was only recently confirmed by molecular evidence for Am, Ca, Cn, and Me in southern and eastern Colombia. Except for these localities, the old records of this species in Colombia must be carefully examined and assigned either to A. archianassa archianassa or A. archianassa venecolombiana. Arsenura batesii (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874) was reported for Vl by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species is restricted to eastern Colombia. The old record should refer to A. arcaei. Arsenura batesii arcaei Druce, 1886 was reported for Cu (Lemaire 1980), but this taxon has been recently raised to species status (Brechlin 2023b) and it seems to be restricted to western Colombia. The old record should refer to A. batesii. Automeris abdominalis (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874) was reported for An and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;, but this species is only known from the type material, whose origin was assigned to the type locality in "Colombia, Bogotá" (Brechlin 2023c). The identity of this species is doubtful, and probably among A. abdgachala and A. abdsanboyacensis, which are found in Cundinamarca (Brechlin 2023c). It must be noted that much old locality information (e.g., especially by Apollinaire Marie) are unreliable (Lemaire 2002: 897). Only genetic studies of the lectotype of A. abdominalis could clarify this issue (Brechlin 2023c). In light of the description of many species within this complex from western Colombia, the old records should refer to them. Automeris bilinea (Walker, 1855) was reported for NS (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but currently, there is only a barcoding evidence of this species from Cn (Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021). Decaëns et al. (2021) showed that this is a cryptic species complex in which the identification could be difficult. Automeris duchartrei Bouvier, 1936 was reported for By , but this old record likely refers to A. handschugi.
Automeris exigua Lemaire, 1977 was reported for Cu by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species is distributed in western Colombia. The old record likely refers to A. dagmarae. Automeris hamata Schaus, 1906 was reported for By, Cu, Hu, andMe (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2007), but this species is restricted to northern and western Colombia. The old records likely refer to A. angulatus. Automeris janus (Cramer, 1775) was reported for An, By, and Hu, as an Andean species, by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 170). By contrast, in footnote 20 (Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021: 196), this species was mentioned for Am only ("BIN BOLD:ACF3806"). In fact, there is evidence for this species in BOLD (Sample ID: IavH-E-190356) for Am, although the available image wrongly corresponds to a specimen of A. curvilinea. Additionally, the old record of this species for An (Amarillo-Suárez 2000) is probably a misinterpretation of A. exigua or A. dagmarae which are both found in An. Automeris occidentorestes Brechlin & Meister, 2011 was reported for Am by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 171), but the specimen with barcode (Sample ID in BOLD) IavH-E-190391 likely refers to A. serpina. Automeris oiticicai Lemaire, 1966 was reported for Cc and Vl (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010) in the western Cordillera, so this record is possible but could not be verified without barcode evidence. Cerodirphia mota (Druce, 1909) was doubtfully reported for To by , but this species is probably only distributed in Vl. Thus, the old record may refer to C. giustii. Citheronia equatorialis Bouvier, 1927 was reported for An, Ca, St, and Vl (Lemaire 1988b;Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005). However, this species can be found in southwestern Colombia, at least in Na and very likely in Vl at low and medium elevations, while C. caucensis is found at higher elevations in Vl. The old records for An and St likely refer to C. bellavista. Copaxa andensis Lemaire, 1971 was reported for By , but this species is restricted to more western parts of Colombia, with its type locality in Vl. Copaxa semioculata (C. Felder & R. Felder, 1874) was reported for Na and To (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species is restricted to the Eastern Cordillera (Wolfe 2005). The old records probably refer to C. dagmarae (Brechlin et al. 2016b). Copaxa simson bireni Bénéluz, 2008 was originally described in full species status from French Guiana, and later Bénéluz (2021) treated it as a subspecies of C. simson. At the moment, we treat C. s. simson (TL: Panama) for the more western populations (e.g., BC-RBP 12399 and BC-Dec0584) and C. s. bireni for the eastern ones (e.g., BC-Dec1450 and BC-Dec0604). Further studies are necessary. Copaxa wernermeisteri Brechlin & Meister, 2010 was described from Mexico (type locality: Chiapas), but this locality is erroneous. The corrected type locality is in western Colombia, Vl. Dirphia somniculosa (Cramer, 1777) was reported for Ch and Vl Decaëns et al. 2003b;Prada-Lara et al. 2019), but this species is restricted to eastern Colombia. Thus, the old records for western Colombia very likely belong to D. somoccidentalis.
Dirphiella niobe (Lemaire, 1978) was reported for Na by , but the toponym of the collecting site ("Namambi") and the location of the deposit of the cited specimen are unknown. In addition, recent sampling has not confirmed the presence of this species in the country. The distribution of this species in both the Venezuelan Cordillera de Merida and southwestern Colombian Andes is very unlikely, as well as the assignation of this species to the Mexican genus Dirphiella. Dirphiopsis flora (Schaus, 1911) was reported for By , but this species is restricted to western Colombia. Therefore, the old record likely refers to D. orientalis. Erythromeris flexilineata (Dognin, 1911) was reported for By by .
However, this species is only confirmed at its type locality, Paramo del Quindío, and further south in Vl. Thus, this old record likely refers to E. christbrechlinae. Gamelia kiefferi Lemaire, 1967 was reported for Cc (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010) and Cu (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species is only found near its type locality in Anchicayá, Vl. The old record for Cc is possible but could not be verified recently. Gamelia pyrrhomelas (Walker, 1855) was reported for Na and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; , but this species is only known to us from its type locality near Bogotá, Cu. Gamelioides sachai Brechlin, Käch & Meister, 2011 is probably a synonym of G. elainae (Lemaire, 1967), according to current studies of this genus (Brechlin 2016e, 2018n), but the DNA study of the female holotype of the latter is needed. Hirpida gaujoni (Dognin, 1894) was reported for By by , but this old record very likely refers to H. peggyae. Hylesia (Hylesia) mymex Dyar, 1913 was reported for By , but this species is restricted to western Colombia. The old record likely refers to H. (H.) mymsantandex. Hylesia (Hylesia) olivenca Schaus, 1927 was reported for Ch , but this species is restricted to eastern Colombia. Hylesia (Hylesia) praeda Dognin, 1901 was reported for An, Ch, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;, but this species is restricted to eastern Colombia. The old records likely refer to H. (H.) praedpichinchensis. Leucanella flammans (Schaus, 1900) was reported for Me by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species is restricted to western Colombia. Leucanella nyctimene (Latreille, 1832) was reported for Cc, Cu, Na, and Ri (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; . According to recent studies, including the description of several new taxa within this species complex, L. nyctimene is only found in Cu until now (Brechlin 2021c). Thus, the old records of this species for Cc and Ri probably belong to L. tolimaiana, while the record for Na probably refers to L. bolanosi. Lonomia columbiana Lemaire, 1972 was reported for By and Ma (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; , but this species is restricted to western Colombia. Lonomia rufescens Lemaire, 1972 was reported for By , but this species is restricted to western Colombia. Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) flavodiscata (Dognin, 1916) was reported for Cl and Cu . However, species of this genus are known to have very narrow distributions. Thus, the old records likely refer to other species of this genus.
Molippa latemedia (Druce, 1890) was reported for An by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species is restricted to eastern Colombia. The old record likely refers to M. latcolombiana. Othorene purpurascens (Schaus, 1905) was reported for Ch, Na, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b;Prada-Lara et al. 2019), but this species is a Guiano-Amazonian species that is found in eastern Colombia.
The old records likely belong to O. vanschayckorum. Paradaemonia platydesmia (Rothschild, 1907) was reported for Ch and Vl by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but these old records likely refer to P. castanea. Periga occidentalis (Lemaire, 1972) was reported for By and St , but this species is restricted to western Colombia. Additionally, Periga elsa and P. intensiva could be synonyms of P. occidentalis, as discussed by Brechlin (2023k), but no taxonomic change was made herein. Pseudautomeris antioquia (Schaus, 1921) was reported for Ch, Na, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b), but this species is endemic to An. The old, more southern records likely refer to P. winbrechlini. Pseudodirphia infuscata (Bouvier, 1924) was reported for An, Cl, Cu, and Me (type locality) (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; ), but the identity and distribution of this species are doubtful and need further studies. This species' type locality does not refer to the collecting site, as explained by Lemaire (2002: 897). Rothschildia aricia (Walker, 1855) was reported for Na and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000). These old records belong to the subspecies Rothschildia a. napoecuadoriana.

Excluded taxa
The following 94 taxa, listed in alphabetic order, were previously reported for Colombia but are excluded from the current checklist due to recent changes in taxonomy and the descriptions of new species, as well as new findings regarding the distribution ranges of several known taxa.
Adeloneivaia jason (Boisduval, 1872) was reported for Ca, Cc, Ch, Me, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b;Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005;Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010), but this is a complex of species, and A. jason is known to be restricted to Mexico and northern Guatemala (Brechlin 2017b). Several new species of this species complex have been described, so the old records likely refer to them. Adeloneivaia subangulata (Herrich-Schäffer, 1855) was reported for An, Ca, Ch, Me, and Vl (Lemaire 1988b;Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005). However, the old records likely refer to A. pallida, previously considered as a subspecies of A. subangulata and later raised to full species status by . Adelowalkeria eugenia (Druce, 1904) was reported for Hu (Lemaire 1988b;Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species is restricted to the Guianan region. Therefore, the old record likely refers to either A. bezverkhovi, which is still not confirmed for Colombia, or A. eugenicolombiana Brechlin 2017m). but several species were described within the phoronea-species complex . Citheronia phoronea sensu stricto is known to be restricted to the Guianan region, including parts of eastern Venezuela. Thus, the old records likely refer to C. phochocoensis in western Colombia (An, Ch, and Vl) or C. phoandensis in eastern Colombia (Ca and Me). Citioica anthonilis (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854) was reported for By, Ca, Ch, Me, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003bDecaëns et al. , 2007Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005;Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021), but the type locality of this species is in (southeastern?) Brazil. Therefore, the old records in Colombia likely refer to C. colombiana or C. rubrocanescens (Brechlin 2017c). Furthermore, the latter could also be treated as a subspecies of C. anthonilis, given the current molecular evidence, but no formal taxonomic change is made here. Citioica homoea (Rothschild, 1854) was reported for Me (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species has a more southern distribution. In Colombia, the old record likely refers to C. kaechi (Brechlin 2017c). Copaxa decrescens Walker, 1855 was reported for An, By, Ch, Me, and Na (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003bDecaëns et al. , 2007, but this species is restricted to southeastern Brazil (Brechlin and Meister 2012d). The old records likely refer to either C. andescens or C. metescens. Copaxa expandens Walker, 1855 was reported for St (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species is known to be restricted to northern Venezuela (Aragua and Carabobo) ). The old record likely refers to C. parexpandens. Copaxa multifenestrata (Herrich-Schäffer, 1858) was reported for By, Cc, Ch, Na, St, and To (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b;Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010). However, this species is known to be restricted to Mexico only (Brechlin and Meister 2012d). The old records of this species could refer to e.g., C. rufotincta. Copaxa rufinans Schaus, 1906 was reported for An, By, Ch, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003bDecaëns et al. , 2007. However, the nominate subspecies is restricted to Mexico only. The old record for Ch very likely refers to C. r. rufstralica. Dirphia avia (Stoll, 1780) was reported for An, Ch, Cn and Me (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b;Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021), but several taxa were newly described or reinstated within this species complex (Brechlin and Meister 2011d;Brechlin 2017j). The distribution of D. avia sensu stricto is restricted to the Guianan region. The old records likely refer to D. aviluisiana for An, D. avichoco for Ch (Brechlin and Meister 2011d), and D. concolor for Cn and Me (Brechlin 2022k). Dirphia crassifurca Lemaire, 1993 was reported for An, By, Cl, and St (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2007), but it is now known to be restricted to Venezuela. This species is part of a complex of species. The old records of this species should mainly refer to D. crassgachala, but other possibilities are D. santboyacensis, D. tolimafurca, or D. yarumala. Dirphia radiata Dognin, 1916 was reported for Colombia by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 174), but until now this species is known from French Guiana only. The specimen with barcode (Sample ID in BOLD) PCG19, became a paratype of the recently described D. radinirida from Gn (Brechlin and Comoglio 2023d).
Dysdaemonia boreas (Cramer, 1775) was reported for An, Ar, By, Ch, and Vl by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), Decaëns et al. (2003b), and Decaëns et al. (2007). However, according to Brechlin (2019e), this is a complex of species. Dysdaemonia boreas is restricted to the Guianan region, including parts of eastern Venezuela and northern Brazil (Brechlin 2019e). The old records of this species in Colombia likely refer to D. australoboreas, D. panamana, or D. vanschaycki. Eacles adoxa Jordan, 1910was reported for Ca (Amarillo-Suárez 2000Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005), but this species is restricted to the Guianan region (Brechlin 2022i). The old record likely refers to the recently described E. adoxandensis. Eacles fulvaster Rothschild, 1907 was reported for Ca (Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005) as Eacles masoni fulvaster, but later raised to full species status by . Given that Eacles f. fulvaster has a more southern distribution, the old record of this taxon likely refers to Eacles f. oriecuadoriana . Eacles imperialis (Drury, 1773) was reported for An, Cc, Ch, Cu, Ma, Na, To, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010), but this is a North American species. The old records likely refer to either E. anchicayensis or E. impandensis. Eacles imperialis anchicayensis Lemaire, 1971 was reported for Ch Prada Lara et al. 2019), but this subspecies has been raised to full species status (Brechlin 2022i -Suárez 2000), but this is another complex of taxa. In the masoni-species group sensu , the distribution of E. masoni sensu stricto is restricted to Mexico and northern Guatemala only. Thus, the old records of masoni likely refer to E. tyrannus. The latter has been raised to full species status from its previous subspecies status with E. masoni by . Eacles ormondei Schaus, 1889 was reported for Cc (Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010), but E. ormondei sensu stricto is only known from Mexico. Thus, the old record could refer to E. niepelti or E. violacea. Both taxa have been recently released from their subspecies status of E. ormondei by Brechlin (2022i). Eacles ormondei niepelti Draudt, 1930 was reported for Ch, Na, andVl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b;Prada Lara et al. 2019), but this subspecies has been raised to full species status by Brechlin (2022i). Gamelia abasia (Stoll, 1781) was reported for Ar, Ch, Cu, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;Decaëns et al. 2003b), but this is another complex of species. Gamelia abasia is restricted to the Guianan region (Brechlin and Meister 2012b). The old records for Ch likely refer to G. cimarrones (Decaëns et al. 2005), while for other departments, to other species of this genus (Brechlin and Meister 2012b;Brechlin 2018k, 2020f, 2021d. Gamelia neidhoeferi Lemaire, 1967 was reported for Cu, Ri, andTo (Amarillo-Suárez 2000;, but this species has a more southern species group have been described in a recent revision (Brechlin 2020e), so the old record likely refers to one of them. "Janiodes praeclara Naumann et al." is here considered as a nomen nudum, as it has not been validly described. This name was only mentioned once in Decaëns et al. (2003b) as a species to be described from Ch. Leucanella yungasensis Meister & Naumann, 2006 was reported for Cu by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 183), but this species is only known from southern Peru, Bolivia, and Argentina. The old record is probably based on a mislabeled specimen (Sample ID [in BOLD]: "Bc-Roug0012"). Its origin is very likely from Santa Cruz department in Bolivia, compared with other barcoded specimens from the same area. Lonomia achelous (Cramer, 1777) was reported for Cn by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 183), but this species is restricted to the Guianan and Amazon region (Brechlin and Meister 2019;Bénéluz 2021). Lemaire (1973) designated a neotype of L. achelous from Surinam. Furthermore, Brechlin and Meister (2019: 16) discussed the misinterpretation of this taxon in .
The old record for Cn should refer to L. casanarensis. Further studies and barcoding of the neotype are needed to clarify the identity of L. achelous. Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) diazmaurini Decaëns, Bonilla & Ramirez, 2005 was reported for Cl (Decaëns et al. 2004b), but this species has been synonymized with M. fassli (Brechlin 2018i). Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) erythropus (Maassen, 1890) was reported for To (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species is currently only known from Ecuador . The old record likely refers to another species of this genus. However, this species could be expected in southern Colombia, as it occurs in the north-Ecuadorian province of Carchi, very near the border with Na. Molippa nibasa Maassen & Weyding, 1885 was reported for By and Ch Prada-Lara et al. 2019), but this species is restricted to Mexico (neotype designation in Brechlin 2021a). The old records of this species likely refer to M. flavotegana . Molippa simillima Jones, 1907 was reported for By, Ca, Ch, Cn, Cu, Hu, Me, andPu (Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021), but this species is distributed in Brazil and northeastern Argentina. The old records likely refer to M. simandensis, M. basina, or M. flavotegana. Othorene hodeva (Druce, 1904) was reported for Ca (Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005), but this species is now known to be restricted to the Guianan region. The old record likely refers to O. winbrechlini (Brechlin and Meister 2011j). Oxytenis albilunulata Schaus, 1912 was reported for Ch ), but the nominate O. a. albilunulata is a Central American taxon. The old record likely refers to O. a. albecuatoriana, which is known to occur in western Colombia. Oxytenis leda Druce, 1906 was reported for Ca (Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005), but this species is restricted to central Peru. The old record could refer to O. panguana. Oxytenis naemia orecta Jordan, 1924 was reported for Ch Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021), but this subspecies is known from Costa Rica only. The old record likely refers to O. naemia jordani. Paradaemonia andensis (Rothschild, 1907) was reported for Me by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), but this species ranges from central Peru to Bolivia (Brechlin 2018b Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005), but this species is now known to be restricted to the Guianan region (Brechlin 2018j). Therefore, the old records likely refer to e.g., P. concava, P. ecandides, P. ecoccidides, or P. septentrides. Pseudodirphia eumedidoides (Vuillot, 1893) was reported for Cu and Me (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this is a Brazilian species and its species group needs further research. There are several possibilities to which the old records could refer to e.g., P. concava, P. ecandides, P. ecoccidides, or P. septentrides. Pseudodirphia menander menander (Druce, 1886) was reported for Cc, Ch, and Vl (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; Decaëns et al. 2003b;Muñoz and Amarillo-Suárez 2010), but this nominate subspecies is known to be distributed in Central America only. The old records of this subspecies likely refer to P. m. reducta that occurs in western Colombia. Pseudodirphia peruviana (Bouvier, 1924) was reported for Cu  and St (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species seems to have a more southern distribution, given its type locality in the Peruvian department of Puno. According to Lemaire (2002: 896), the identification of the specimen collected by Fassl in Cu was doubtful, and he noted that "several species may be involved, the separation of which however remains problematic." Given the recent description of several new species of this genus from Colombia (Brechlin and Meister 2011g;Brechlin 2018j), the old records of P. peruviana for Colombia should refer to another species of this genus that is distributed in the Eastern Cordillera, despite its occurrence in the Colombian Amazon (e.g., Am and Pu) cannot be excluded. Psilopygida (Psigida) walkeri (Grote, 1867) was reported for Me (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), but this species has a much more eastern as well as southern distribution in South America. The old record likely refers to P. apollinairei, which has been raised to full species status by . Ptiloscola photophila (Rothschild, 1907) was reported for Am and Ca (Amarillo-Suárez 2000; Racheli and Vinciguerra 2005), but this species is known to be restricted to the Guianan region. The old records likely refer to P. wolfei (Brechlin and Meister 2008). Rachesa breteuili (Bouvier, 1927) Brechlin & Meister, 2012). Thus, the old records likely refer to R. equatorialis which has been raised to full species status by Brechlin and Meister (2012c). Rothschildia peruviana Rothschild, 1907 was reported for Colombia (Jiménez-Bolívar et al. 2021), but the distribution of the nominotypical species seems to be restricted to southern Peru and northern Bolivia only. The old record likely refers to its subspecies R. peruviana coxeyi. Therinia transversaria transversaria (Druce, 1887)  Adelowalkeria bezverkhovi Brechlin, 2017 was described from specimens collected in Venezuela (Mérida) and Ecuador (Orellana) (Brechlin 2017m). Therefore, its occurrence should be expected in eastern Colombia. Arsenura archianassa porioni Lemaire, 1980, known from western Ecuador (Manabí province), is expected in southwestern Colombia (Na) (Brechlin 2023b). Automeris arminandensis Brechlin & Käch, 2017 was described from two specimens collected in Ecuador (Orellana) and Peru (Loreto) (Brechlin et al. 2017: 71). But there is an additional (female) specimen in CRBP (BC-HKT 0225) from the Ecuadorian province of Sucumbíos very near the border to Putumayo. Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southeastern Colombia. Automeris barragani Brechlin, Käch & Meister, 2013 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), very near the border to Nariño ). Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia.
Automeris sachai Brechlin, Käch & Meister, 2013 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), very near the border to Nariño . Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Copaxa kaechi Brechlin & Meister, 2013 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), near the border to Nariño ). Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Copaxa tulcana Brechlin, 2016 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), very near the border to Nariño ). Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Eacles alinae Brechlin & Käch, 2015 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Napo) at low elevations. Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Erythromeris kaechi Brechlin, 2016 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), very near the border to Nariño (Brechlin 2016b). Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Gamelia rindgei Lemaire, 1967 was reported for the Amazon region of eastern Ecuador and northern Peru . Therefore, its occurrence is expected in the Colombian Amazon. Hyperchiria parda Brechlin, Käch & Meister, 2011 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Tungurahua) ). Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia. Loxolomia johnsoni Schaus, 1932, known from northern Peru (Loreto and Amazonas departments) to Bolivia, is expected at least in the far southeast of Colombia (Am). Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) erythropus (Maassen, 1890) could be expected in southern Colombia as it occurs in the north-Ecuadorian province of Carchi (e.g., BC-RBP 7085) very near the border with Na. Meroleuca (Meroleucoides) kaechi Brechlin & Meister, 2013 was described from specimens collected in Ecuador (Carchi), near the border to Nariño. Therefore, its occurrence is expected in southern Colombia ). Pseudodirphia ecoridides Brechlin, Meister & Käch, 2011 was reported for the Amazon region of eastern Ecuador (Brechlin and Meister 2011g) and northern Peru. Therefore, its occurrence is expected in the Colombian Amazon. Rhescyntis descimoni Lemaire, 1975 was reported for the Amazon region of Ecuador (Napo) (Racheli and Racheli 2006) and Peru (San Martín). Therefore, its occurrence should be expected in the Colombian Amazon.

Notes on the previously published checklists of the Colombian Saturniidae
The aim of this study is to show the taxonomic richness of the Saturniidae fauna of Colombia. During this work, we were becoming aware that there were still many taxonomical problems to solve, as well as a large number of unmounted specimens in the collection of the second author (CRBP), including some undescribed taxa (Brechlin [et al.] (2000) and Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021), it is now necessary to present the correct numbers (Table 3). The difference in comparison with the paper by Amarillo-Suárez (2000) is because herein the genus Hyperchiria Hübner, 1819 [1816] and the species Hyperchiria nausica (Cramer, 1779) and Rhodirphia carminata (Schaus, 1902) were listed (and counted) twice (Amarillo-Suárez 2000: 184 f). That is why "a total of 185 species, distributed in 46 genera" were listed in Amarillo-Suárez (2000: 177 ff).
In Table 1 in Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 155), these authors stated to report the "No of genera / spp. and sspp." but for the preprint study by Comoglio and Brechlin (2021), they only gave the number of species, but not of all taxa. In our preprint we presented a total number of 602 species, counting e.g., Arsenura archianassa archianassa and A. a. porioni as a single species; thus, the direct comparison is misleading. The correct number of all listed taxa (sp. and ssp.) in Comoglio and Brechlin (2021) is indeed 621 as shown in Table 3.
Furthermore, we are concerned about the records extending some species' distributional ranges. Taxa identification in cryptic species complexes cannot be easily accomplished through a photograph. For instance, there is still a large number of Saturniidae species reported in "iNaturalist" for Colombia, which are definitely not distributed in the country: e.g., Automeris cecrops, Automeris io, Copaxa herbuloti, Molippa rivulosa, Rothschildia triloba, and others. These records correspond to an incorrect identification assigned to the observations of the iNaturalist platform, which are mostly unverified or tentatively carried out by inexperienced users. For example, this is the case of the records of Copaxa antiollita for Ma (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/54286917) and St (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/20981043) reported by Jiménez-Bolívar et al. (2021: 194) that likely refer to C. winbrechliniani and C. satellita, respectively. Exceptions can only be made for those species whose identity is clearly visible by external morphological features (e.g., Antheraea godmani columbiana, Copaxa sapatoza, or Rothschildia zacateca).

Taxonomic progress
The taxonomy of the Saturniidae has undergone a constant change and increase in the description of taxa on a global scale, with nearly 150 taxa described per year from 2008, when DNA barcoding began to be used to describe species (Decaëns and Rougerie 2008), to 2018 (Kitching et al. 2018). This effort is also evident for the Colombian Saturniidae, whose taxonomic progress has been especially promoted by the second author (RB) and his working group. Together, Brechlin et al. have described 529 taxa distributed in Colombia (Fig. 2), which is 67% of the total number of known taxa for the country. Since the publication of the first checklist of Colombian Saturniidae (Amarillo-Suárez 2000), there has been a spectacular increase in the number of species descriptions (Fig. 3), with the description of 543 taxa that make up 69% of the currently known taxa for the country. In the last decade (2013-2023), on average, 40 Saturniidae taxa distributed in Colombia have been described annually. It should also be noted that an impressive number of 93 taxa has been described since the publication of this study's preprint (Comoglio and Brechlin 2021). Figure 2. UpSet plot of the number of described Saturniidae species and subspecies that are distributed in Colombia by author or groups of authors. Data were retrieved from the "Taxon" column of Table 2. Those authors (n = 36) that have contributed fewer than 10 described taxa were grouped together as "Other".

Diversity and endemism
While diurnal butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) have been studied to a greater extent in Colombia, achieving to list 3,877 species, of which 219 are endemic (Garwood et al. 2022), little is known about the richness of moth species in the country. Checklists of moths have recently been published for a few families. In Colombia, 188 species of Sphingidae (Correa-Carmona et al. 2015), at least 177 species of Geometridae (Murillo-Ramos et al. 2021), 53 species of Pterophoridae (Landry and Gielis 2022), and 515 species of Notodontidae, of which 51 are endemic (Prada-Lara et al. 2023), have been reported. Therefore, the Saturniidae are currently Colombia's most diverse documented family of moths, besides presenting the highest number and rate of endemic species. However, the diversity of some families, such as Erebidae and Geometridae, which is extremely high in the world (van Nieukerke et al. 2011) and the Neotropic (Pitkin 2002;Vincent and Laguerre 2014;Murillo-Ramos et al. 2021), is currently tremendously underestimated in Colombia and the Neotropic, and could significantly exceed the richness of Saturniidae in the country. It was already anticipated by Lemaire and Venedictoff (1989: 2) that "only Colombia, which has a geographical situation comparable with Ecuador, (with much more complexity in the cordilleras), may support a larger fauna" of Saturniidae, and finally, this study makes Colombia the most diverse documented country in the world for this family.
Colombia's best-known regions regarding Saturniidae diversity include the Pacific and Andean regions. The most speciose subfamily in Colombia is Hemileucinae, and it is not surprising that many species and even a genus of this subfamily are endemic and were recently described. Most endemism are high Andean species with very narrow distribution ranges, mainly members of the genera Automeris of the alticola group, Copaxa of the sapatoza (semioculata) group, Gamelioides, Janiodes, and Meroleuca. A great endemic diversity of Colombian Saturniidae can be studied in montane biotopes such as high Andean forests and páramos. For example, the genus Meroleuca comprises 30 species in Colombia, almost all endemic. This data confirms a hypothesis by Lemaire that years before the intensive sampling in the Neotropic predicted that new species of Meroleuca "are expected every time a new collecting site is sampled at about 2500 m elevation or more" (Lemaire 2002: 14). The distribution of the endemic species of Saturniidae in Colombia demonstrates the importance of prioritizing the conservation of paramo and high Andean habitats, where the true richness of unique species for the country is concentrated. On the other hand, it should be noted that many Colombian endemic Saturniidae are classified as such at the moment because they are only known from their type locality. For instance, Dirphia radinirida and Pseudodirphia leticiana are expected to be found in the neighboring Amazonian countries in the future.
Few species can be considered truly polytopic, with a wide distribution range. All of these taxa occur in lowlands and have not been reported for elevations higher than 1,500 meters. A short list of polytopic taxa includes Arsenura ciocolatina, Caio championi, Titaea tamerlan, Adeloneivaia boisduvalii, A. pallida, Syssphinx quadrilineata, Automeris argentifera, Hylesia (Hylesia) continua, Hylesia (Micrattacus) nanus, Lonomia venezuelensis, Hirpida gaujoni, Rothschildia lebeau aroma, and Copaxa troetschi. Furthermore, the vast major-ity of these taxa have not been recently described, so records of their distribution have accumulated in the literature. In contrast, many recently described taxa are known only from their type locality, but their distribution could be expanded through increased sampling efforts. A recent example of this is the distribution of Antheraea godmani columbiana, which was recently found in the southern department of Caquetá. In contrast, previous records showed that its distribution was limited to Antioquia and Santander, which is surprising considering that it is a relatively highland species (Ramos-Artunduaga et al. 2022). Other highland species that, until the checklist by Amarillo-Suárez (2000), were believed to be limited to the Eastern Cordillera are Bathyphlebia aglia and Erythromeris saturniata, which today are known to be distributed in both Eastern and Central Cordillera. Automeris iwanowitschi, a highland species of the alticola-species group, described from Ecuador, was initially found only in the south of the country in the Central Cordillera, but was later found in Antioquia, due to additional sampling efforts.

Conclusions
Many Saturniidae species have been recently described from Colombia. This study is the most recent attempt to present a checklist containing all the new descriptions and updated distribution data of all Colombian Saturniidae taxa. Most of these records are available on BOLD repository which has been used as both a tool for taxonomists (e.g., describing new species) and a source of occurrence data for each species. This comprehensive checklist of the Saturniidae of Colombia includes 790 taxa (766 in species rank) within 55 genera in 7 subfamilies, for which an updated taxonomic key is provided. According to available distribution data, the genus Winbrechlinia, the subgenus Darylesia, 379 species, and 18 subspecies are endemic to Colombia. Several old records and some species names given in the checklist by Amarillo-Suárez (2000) were discussed if excluded from this present checklist due to new studies and evidence. This checklist aims to avoid confusion with old names and provide an updated list of Colombian Saturniidae species. It is expected that this work will also become a useful tool for identification based on the biogeographic distribution of the species. The most recently described species (as of 15 June 2023), together with their distribution data, are included. A review and update of the taxonomy of the Colombian Saturniidae taxa were carried out, including some critical taxonomic changes, proposing synonymies and revalidations of taxa. Future studies and sampling in the Colombian lowlands should reveal additional species that are expected in Colombia as they have already been reported from the neighboring countries. Nevertheless, this checklist and the remarkable diversity of Colombian saturniid moths emphasizes the status of Colombia as an outstanding reference country for studying moth diversity and as the richest documented country in the world for Saturniidae diversity. Richard Peigler, Kirby Wolfe, and Frédéric Bénéluz. RB wants to thank Daniel Janzen, Daniel Herbin, Ian J. Kitching, Frank Meister, Eric van Schayck, Jan-P. Rudloff, Peggy Rimkus-Handschug [Ackermann], Horst Käch, Axel Hausmann, the late Thomas Witt, and the late Rudolph E. J. Lampe. Last but most important, this paper is dedicated to Viktor (and Svetlana) Sinyaev(a) for their efforts and tireless passion for moth collecting.