Buletin de Informare Entomologică Vol. 31 / 2020
2020
Kovács & Kovács 2007a: 35), then to avoid further confusion we formally delete here E. hydrargyrana from the Romanian checklist, and replace it with E. parreyssiana. In the second part of the series Cochylimorpha jucundana (Treitschke, 1835) was included based only on the literature (Kovács & Kovács 2005a: 98). Based on recently collected material we can confirm its presence in the Romanian fauna, and we provide previousely unknown information on its biology: the existence of a second generation in August and we describe its habitat as steppe grassland on limestone at low elevation. Consequently, a total of 98 Cochylini (97 Cochylina and 1 Euliina) species are recorded from Romania, 92 of them being confirmed by currently examined material, a further 6 are mentioned only in the literature. 4 species are deleted. A checklist of the tribe is given below following the nomenclature and systematics suggested by Brown et al. (2020) and the nomenclatural changes proposed here. A separate list of the deleted species is also given. The reason for introducing the nomenclatural changes The genus Cochylis Treitschke, 1830 has long been considered a polyphyletic assemblage of externally similar species, but with considerable different genitalia. Attempts to divide it into genera or subgenera have been made by Obraztsov (1943), Obraztsov & Swatschek (in Swatschek 1958) and Razowski (1960), but later all were synonymized with Cochylis by Razowski (1968). However, the necessity of a re-evaluation was suggested again by Razowski (1985). This re-assessment became possible only recently when Cochylichroa Obraztsov & Swatschek, 1958 was reinstated (Brown 2019) and some subgenera raised to generic status to accommodate most of the species placed earlier in Cochylis'. Neocochylis Razowski, 1960, Paracochylis Razowski, 1960, Brevicornutia Razowski, 1960 and Pontoturania Obraztsov, 1943. This new concept also resulted in a significantly reduced genus Cochylis s.s. The western Palaearctic species Cochylis epilinana Duponchel, 1842 was left provisionally in the large polyphyletic Cochylis s.1., because it was found to be an isolated species which cannot be assigned convincingly to any of these genera, and may require a new genus (Brown et al. 2020). This latter statement is incorrect in our opinion because Razowski (1960: 314) described the genus Longicornutia Razowski, 1960 with Cochylis phaleratana Herrich-Schäffer, 1851 as the type species: “Genus 23: Longicornutia gen. nov. (figs 35, 100, 140), Typus generis: Cochylis phaleratana Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851. ... Two species belong here vis. Longicornutia phalerotana [sic!] (H.-S.) and L. carpophilana (Stgr.).” These figures depict: 35 - the head in lateral view, 100 - the male genitalia, and 140 - the female genitalia. It can be seen that these genitalia figures do not coincide with those of the Cochylis phaleratana Herrich-Schäffer, 1851, currently a junior synonym of Cochylidia subroseana subroseana (Haworth, 1811) (cf. Razowski 1970: species no 247; 2002: species no 189a; 2009: species no 302a), but with Cochylis epilinana Duponchel, 1842 (cf. Razowski 1970: species no 281; 2002: species no 202; 2009: species no 338). Moreover, the second species included in the genus by Razowski (1960: 314), Longicornutia carpophilana Staudinger, 1859, is currently regarded as a junior synonym of Cochylis epilinana'. “Cochylis epilinana Duponchel, 1842 ... Synonym: Cochylis carpophilana Staudinger, 1859” (Razowski 1970: 427; 2002: 70; 2009: 106). This error was noticed and corrected by Svensson (1966: 185, 188) who studied the type specimens of both Cochylis phaleratana and C. epilinana and concluded that the latter was confused with C. phaleratana. which was a junior synonym of Cochylidia subroseana. After commenting that Obraztsov (1956) misinterpreted C. subroseana in founding the genus Cochylidia. Svensson states “Razowski (1960), too, founded his genus Longicornutia on a wrongly determined species. Instead of phaleratana the type-species ought to be epilinana Duponchel. Referring to the International Code of Nomenclature, Article 70 a (i), this seems to serve stability best.” Svensson then designates a lectotype for C. epilinana. In the revision of the generic group Cochylis Razowski (1968: 133) synonymized Longicornutia with Cochylis and accepted Svensson’s results. In the monograph of Cochylidae Razowski (1970: 427), under “Cochylis epilinana Duponchel, 1842” gives the following: “Falsche Determinationen [= Misidentifications]: phaleratana'. Kennel, 1910, t. 12, f. 62; 1913: 273 (part) [Phalonia\ ...phaleratana'. Razowski 1960: 314, f. 35 (Kopf [= Head]), 100 0 Genit.), 140 (Ș Genit.) [Longicornutia^ . In the same work Razowski (1970: 379,397) gave C. phaleratana as a junior synonym of Cochylidia subroseana. and specified Cochylis epilinana as the type-species of the genus Longicornutia. the latter a synonym of Cochylis'. “Cochylis Treitschke, 1829 ... Synonyma: ... Longicornutia Razowski, 1960, Polskié Pismo ent. 30: 314. Typus: Cochylis epilinana Duponchel, 1842 (festgelegt in der Originalbeschreibung unter dem Namen [= designated in the original description with the name] phaleratana auct. nec Herrich-Schäffer ”. It is notable that in Razowski (1960) phaleratana Herrich-Schäffer is given as the type-species and in Razowski (1970) phaleratana is given as auct. nec Herrich-Schäffer. However, the latter status was not followed in his 7