The U.S. National Park Service initiated a 10-year study of the Lepidoptera at White Sands National Monument, Otero County, New Mexico in late 2006. Givira delindae sp. n., discovered in 2007 during the first year of study, is described here. The male and female adult moths and genitalia are illustrated. The name is dedicated to Delinda Mix, mother of Steve Mix. The species of Cossidae recorded from the Monument during the study are listed.

Endemism, evolution, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Army, White Sands Missile Range, Tularosa Basin, biological diversity, white gypsum dunes

The purpose of this paper is to describe a new species of Givira Walker (Cossidae) from White Sands National Monument. In 2006 White Sands National Monument invited me to conduct a 10-year study of moths at the Monument with the purposes to compile an inventory of moths, and describe new species in habitats within and immediately adjacent to the white gypsum dunes in the Monument. The White Sands National Monument protects 284.9 km2 (110 square miles), about 40%, of the world’s largest snow-white gypsum dune field. The remainder of the 275 square miles formation is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range. The formation is located in the northern Chihuahuan Desert in southern New Mexico’s Tularosa Basin (Schneider-Hector 1993).

The Western National Parks Association (WNPA) in Tucson, Arizona is a nonprofit 501(c) (3) education partner of the National Park Service that supports 71 national park partners across the West, by developing products, services, and programs that enrich the visitor experience. WNPA provided considerable moral support and renewable grants of $7,500 per year during the first three years of my study at White Sands National Monument. I decided to assist WNPA in a fund raising event by agreeing to name a new species of moth, as directed by the winner of an auction conducted by WNPA. The auction, with approval of the National Park Service, was conducted on the popular web-site www.ebay.com. Steve Mix submitted the winning bid, and he chose to have the moth named after his mother because of the lasting nature of this naming opportunity. I received no remuneration in this fund raising venture, and by volunteering my personal money, time, expertise, and experience I was able to help WNPA gain world-wide positive publicity while raising some much needed cash. The rewards to me were being able to help WNPA and Steve Mix honor his mother, which is just so very sentimental.

Prior to this study 20 species of moths were recorded from the Monument (Stroud 1950). None of Stroud’s reported species is unusual for the Tularosa Basin. The lack of lepidopteran specimens until my study can probably be attributed to the dearth of insect collecting in the gypsum dunes ecosystem in New Mexico because the dunes were private property and are now under the control of the U.S. National Park Service and the U.S. Army. In the period 9 February 2007 through 30 July 2016, I collected more than 600 named species (unpublished data) of Lepidoptera from the Monument plus approximately 40 undescribed species of moths. This is the 13th description of a new species of moth emanating from the study (see Metzler 2014, 2016; Metzler et al. 2009; Metzler and Forbes 2011a, 2011b, 2012; Metzler and Landry 2016, Metzler and Lightfoot 2014, Wright 2012, 2014, Wright and Gilligan 2015).

Moths and other night flying insects for this study were collected in U.S.D.A. type black-light traps, as described in Smith et al. (1974), or at black light and sheet as illustrated in Covell (1984). Samples were taken in diverse habitats within the dunes and the adjacent desert habitats in White Sands National Monument. I assigned a unique code, i.e. WSNM 1, WSNM 2, etc. through WSNM Z to each sample site. The date/locality label of each specimen includes the site code along with the latitude, longitude, elevation, and a one or two word description of the habitat at each site. All except easily identified species of moths (e.g. Hyles lineata (Fabricius), Sphingidae), were retained, sorted to species, and selected specimens were spread and labeled. All non-lepidopteran insects from the traps were placed in 95% ethanol and deposited in the Museum of Southwestern Biology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The genitalia were examined by generally following procedures outlined in Clarke (1941), Hardwick (1950), Lafontaine (2004), and Pogue (2002). Abdomens were removed from the moths, dipped in 95% ethyl alcohol, and soaked in 10% KOH for up to 30 minutes at 50°C. Genitalia were dissected in 25% propanol. Genitalia were stained with Orcein in propanol. The genital organs were dehydrated in 100% propanol, and slide mounted in Euparal.

Terminology for regions of the wing and wing markings comes from Mikkola et al. (2009) and genital structures from Klots (1970). Terminology for color comes from Jewell and Abate (2001). Forewing lengths were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm, from the base to the apex excluding fringe, using a Leica MZ 12 stereo-microscope with a Wild Schraubenmikrometer okular 15× SK.

The photographs of the adults of the types of G. carla and G. durangona illustrated in this paper were taken and processed by Karolyn Darrow and made available by Patricia Gentili-Poole. The photographs of the adults of Givira delindae sp. n. were taken with a Nikon D7100 equipped with an AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1.28 GED VR lens and a small homemade light-box, of 4” diameter × 4” long white PCV pipe, illuminated with a 60 LED ring light. The photographs of the genitalia were taken with a Nikon D7100 mounted on a Leitz Aristophot with an 8 cm Summar and an 80 mm condenser. The images the adults of G. delindae and the genitalia were processed with Zerene Systems software and Photoshop CS6 software.

Specimens of Lepidoptera cited in this paper are deposited in the following collections:

EHM Eric H. Metzler for subsequent transfer to MSUC

MSUC Michigan State University Albert J. Cook Arthropod Research Collection

NMSU New Mexico State University Arthropod Collection

UNM University of New Mexico’s Museum of Southwestern Biology

USNM National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

The North American species of the family Cossidae were revised by Barnes and McDunnough (1911) wherein they refined the definition of the genus Givira and included 11 species. The Barnes and McDunnough revision of 1911 was updated by Dyar and Schaus (1937) when all species of Givira from the New World were included. When Hodges (1983) updated the list of Givira for North American, the number of species was 13.

Most of the North American species listed in the genus of Givira are dark colored or have substantial dark smudges on the forewing, i.e. G. anna (Dyar, 1898), G. arbeloides (Dyar, 1899), G. cleopatra Barnes & McDunnough, 1912, G. ethela (Neumoegen & Dyar, 1893), G. francesca (Dyar, 1909), G. lotta Barnes & McDunnough, 1910, G. lucretia (Barnes & McDunnough, 1913), G. marga Barnes & McDunnough, 1910, G. minuta Barnes & McDunnough, 1910, G. mucida (Hy Edwards, 1882), and G. theodori (Dyar, 1893). In contrast G. carla Dyar, 1923, G. cornelia (Neumoegen & Dyar, 1893), G. durangona (Schaus, 1901), and G. delindae sp. n. are substantially white with few or no dark markings.

Barnes and McDunnough (1911) relied on wing venation and the habitus of the adults to define genera and species. Dalle-Torre (1923) published confused taxonomy by making generic and subfamily transfers without explanation. His combinations were corrected by later authors (e.g. Dyar and Schaus 1937). Dyar and Schaus (1937) clarified the Barnes and McDunnough (1911) definition of Givira in order to account for species from Latin America. Clench (1957) modified the taxonomy to accommodate nomenclature of Latin American and Old World species. For the Neotropics, Donahue (1995) listed 86 species of Givira including nine species occurring in the southwestern United States.

Old World treatments of CossidaeDaniel (1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965) and Zagulyaev (1978) placed some emphasis on the morphology of individual antennal segments, whereas Borth et al. (2011), Hua et al. (1990), Hua (2001 (2002)), Jimbo (2011), Roepke (1957), Saldaitis and Ivinskis (2010a, 2010b), Wiltshire (1982), Yakovlev (e.g. 2008a, 2008b, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2015a, 2015b), Yakovlev et al. (2013, 2015), Yakovlev and Saldaitis (2008), and Yakovlev and Witt (2015, 2016) emphasize adult habitus and genitalia without illustration of individual antennal segments. Neither Schoorl’s (1990) nor Edwards et al.’s (1998) reviews of Cossidae classification employed antennal morphology. More recent descriptions of Givira from the Western Hemisphere, (Clench 1956 (1957), 1957, Ureta 1957, and Zukowsky 1954) do not refer to antennal segments. I do not refer to individual antennal segments for three reasons: 1) only Old World treatments illustrated antennal segments; 2) because the Givira-Langsdorfia (see Clench 1957, page 132) group of genera, occur only in the New World, no illustrations of antennal segments of Givira or other species in the group are available for comparison; and 3) illustrations of antennal segments are not being used in modern works, including Yakovlev’s many recent descriptive publications.

Givira delindae, G. carla, and G. durangona are closely similar in appearance. Givira delindae appears to be intermediate between G. carla and G. durangona both in maculation and male genital structure. Givira delindae came to my attention when I noticed that specimens of the small white Cossidae I collected had a satiny appearance of the forewings. I investigated further. The specimens quickly become greasy after which a positive identification is difficult. Identification is often not possible without examination of the male genitalia. All specimens should be degreased as matter of routine. I was able to detect that two of my specimens from White Sands are G. cornelia, and two specimens are G. durangona only after they were degreased.

The males and females of G. delindae are essentially identical in appearance. The hindwings do not have frenulum acanthae. The slightly shorter antennal rhami (difficult to discern without magnification) of the females is the only outward clue to separate males from females. I found that if I carefully brushed away scales from the ventral surface of the apex of the abdomen using a blunted #000 or #0000 artist’s brush, I could see the ventral surface of the barely protruding valvae of the males. The scales can be gently brushed away without disturbing the furcate tuft of scales at the tip of the abdomen.

The internal structures of the female genitalia are arduous to dissect and even more difficult to discern because of the heavily sclerotized T-8 and fatty tissue in the abdomen. The short sclerotized ductus bursae allows very little tolerance to manipulate the structures without tearing the parts apart. The structures are nearly impossible to illustrate with photographs.

Financial contributions from the Western National Parks Association, Tucson, Arizona made this study of Lepidoptera at White Sands National Monument possible. The Northern New Mexico Group, Rio Grande Chapter of Sierra Club, Albuquerque, NM, the El Paso Zoo Conservation Committee, El Paso, Texas, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ Terrestrial Invertebrate Taxon Advisory Group (TITAG), Seattle, Washington also contributed small grants. I am especially grateful for their interest and financial support. Patricia Gentili-Poole from the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian) generously allowed me to examine the types and genital preparations of G. carla, G. cornelia, G. durangona, G. lucretia, G. kunzei, and G. theodori. She allowed me to degrease the types of G. carla and G. durangona and to photograph the genital preparations of those species. Karolyn Darrow used her superior consummate skills to photograph and prepare the digital images of the types of G. carla and G. durangona. Several executives; David Bustos, Marie Frias-Sauter, Kevin R. Schneider, Cliff Spencer, Diane White, and Becky Burghart from the National Park Service were instrumental in arranging and promoting this study of moths. I single out David Bustos, Karolyn Darrow, and Patricia Gentili-Poole for their special support. The impetus for this description came from Steve Mix because of his generous contribution to WNPA.

The National Park Service granted permits take samples of moths and provided access to areas normally closed to the public. Michigan State University’s Albert J. Cook Arthropod Research Collection, New Mexico State University’s Arthropod Collection, and the University of New Mexico’s Museum of Southwestern Biology agreed to be repositories for the specimens collected during the study. Voucher specimens are deposited in the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian Institution).

Representatives from research collections and other institutions provided insect pins, alcohol, identification services, research consultation, and storage space for specimens. I thank the following persons for offering support from their respective institutions: Kelly B. Miller, Sandra L. Brantley, and David C. Lightfoot (University of New Mexico), Frederick W. Stehr, Anthony I. Cognato, and Gary L. Parsons (Michigan State University), J. Donald Lafontaine, Jean-François Landry, Vazrick Nazari, and B. Christian Schmidt (Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids, and Nematodes), Larry Berger (Ohio Department of Agriculture), and David Adamski, John W. Brown, Mark E. Metz, David G. Furth, Patricia Gentili-Poole, Floyd Shockley, and M. Alma Solis (National Museum of Natural History). Houhun Li, College of Life Sciences, Nankai University, Tianjin, China, graciously translated passages from Chinese to English. Patricia A. Metzler faithfully assisted me in many aspects of this study including recording data, and she provided funding. Gregory S. Forbes collected many moths, including some specimens in the type series, during the first few years of study. I thank Roman Yakovlev, Julian P. Donahue, Frederick W. Stehr and two anonymous reviewers for reading the paper and offering valuable suggestions.