Monopis jussii, a new species (Lepidoptera, Tineidae) inhabiting nests of the Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus)

Abstract

Monopis jussii Kaila, Mutanen, Huemer, Karsholt & Autto, sp. nov. (Lepidoptera, Tineidae) is described as a new species. It is closely related to the widespread and common M. laevigella ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775), but differs in its distinct COI DNA barcode sequences, four examined nuclear loci as well as details in forewing coloration and pattern. Most reared specimens of M. jussii have emerged from the nest remnants of the Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus (Linnaeus, 1758)), but also nests of the Ural owl (Strix uralensis Pallas, 1771) and the Great tit (Parus major Linnaeus, 1758) have been observed as suitable habitats. Based on the present knowledge, the new species has a boreo-montane distribution as it is recorded only from northern Europe and the Alps. Several extensive rearing experiments from Strix spp. nest remnants from southern Finland did not produce any M. jussii, but thousands of M. laevigella, suggesting that the species is lacking in the area or, more unlikely, that the nest of these owl species do not serve as good habitat for the new species. This unexpected species discovery highlights, once again, the usefulness of DNA barcoding in revealing the cryptic layers of biodiversity. To serve stability we select a neotype for Tinea laevigella [Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775, and discuss the complicated synonymy and nomenclature of this species.

A molecular‐based identification resource for the arthropods of Finland

“…Despite initial skepticism from national funding agencies, FinBOL has delivered primary research results of the very type traditionally supported by them. Deliverables to date include insights into the protein structure of the barcode region (Pentinsaari et al, 2016), species interactions (Kaartinen et al, 2010; Mutanen, Ovaskainen, et al, 2020; Nyman et al, 2015; Rytkönen et al, 2019; Vesterinen et al, 2013, 2016), taxonomy (Boonstra et al, 2018; Haarto & Ståhls, 2014; Hausmann et al, 2013; Huemer et al, 2020; Huemer & Mutanen, 2015; Ivanov et al, 2018; Kirichenko et al, 2016; Kozlov et al, 2017; Landry et al, 2013; Landvik et al, 2013; Lee et al, 2020; Liston et al, 2019; Mutanen, Aarvik, Huemer, et al, 2012; Mutanen et al, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2020; Nieminen et al, 2018; Pentinsaari et al, 2014; Pentinsaari et al, 2014; Pilipenko et al, 2012; Pohjoismäki & Haarto, 2015; Pohjoismäki et al, 2016; Prous et al, 2016, 2020; Pykälä & Myllys, 2016; Salmela et al, 2014; Sihvonen et al, 2020; Ståhls et al, 2015; Tabell et al, 2019; van Nieukerken et al, 2012; Wikström et al, 2020; Wilson et al, 2011), phylogenetics (Heikkilä et al, 2014; Kaila et al, 2020; Karsholt et al, 2013), faunistics (Korpelainen & Pietiläinen, 2017; Paukkunen & Kozlov, 2015), biogeography (Huemer et al, 2014, 2018; Mutanen, Hausmann, et al, 2012; Salmela, 2012), methodology (Kekkonen et al, 2015; Korpelainen & Pietiläinen, 2...…”

Integrative taxonomy reveals overlooked cryptic diversity in the conifer feeding Batrachedra pinicolella (Zeller, 1839) (Lepidoptera, Batrachedridae)

“…During the last two decades, aided by DNA barcoding, several cryptic species have been discovered among European Lepidoptera (Huemer and Hebert 2011;Mutanen et al 2012aMutanen et al , 2012bMutanen et al , 2020Hernández-Roldán et al 2016;Huemer 2017, 2019;Huemer and Karsholt 2018;Huemer 2020;Wikström et al 2020). The first suspicion that the widespread European pine feeding moth Batrachedra pinicolella (Zeller, 1839) consists of more than one species arose after the publication of the monograph of the European Momphidae s.l.…”