{"content":[{"text":"80","bbox":{"left":0.112121,"top":0.047319,"width":0.020310999999999996,"height":0.017748}},{"text":"James K. Adams & B. Christian Schmidt /","bbox":{"left":0.240191,"top":0.04746,"width":0.305298,"height":0.016603000000000007}},{"text":"ZooKeys 788: 79–86 (2018)","bbox":{"left":0.55511,"top":0.04746,"width":0.20469899999999996,"height":0.016603000000000007}},{"text":"seventh year. Sampling has been carried out in every month several times, and to this \n point the moth list is over 1000 identified moth species [unpubl. data]. The senior \n author acted as a taxonomic consultant through the first four years of the Sapelo Island \n Lepidoptera surveys, and assisted in field work since 2016. \n In early May of that year, males of a Sympistis Hübner species were collected on \n Sapelo Island that did not match any of the known species of Sympistis from Georgia. \n Interestingly, this species was not collected in any of the previous years (April–May \n 2012–2015). Subsequent inquiries to Sympistis specialist Jim Troubridge indicated that \n the specimens possibly represented an unknown species of the figurata species-group. \n Analysis of molecular variation and morphological study revealed that the Sapelo Is- \n land Sympistis represents a new and likely southeastern endemic species of the Sympistis \n badistriga species-group, described and illustrated herein as Sympistis eleaner sp. n.","bbox":{"left":0.112121,"top":0.087909,"width":0.775779,"height":0.23398199999999997}},{"text":"Methods and materials","bbox":{"left":0.112121,"top":0.367629,"width":0.25112500000000004,"height":0.018751000000000018}},{"text":"Wing pattern and genitalia structure terminology follow Troubridge (2008). The \n structure forming the large, main chamber of the bursa copulatrix was interpreted \n by Troubridge (2008) to be the appendix bursae, with the small vestigial side cham- \n ber representing a highly reduced corpus bursae. Although the vestigial chamber in \n Sympistis is probably correctly interpreted as the corpus bursae (it is variously lost or \n well-developed in other species, such that positional homologies can be inferred), the \n appropriate terminology for the main chamber is not clear. The appendix bursae is \n a blind chamber rather than that which gives rise to ductus seminalis, according to \n Tuxen (1956). For the sake of consistency with previous terminology in this genus, we \n follow that of Troubridge (2008), but further research and comparisons are needed to \n establish homologies and consistent terminology within the Noctuoidea. \n Forewing length was measured to the nearest tenth of a millimeter from base to \n apex, excluding the fringe. Genitalic preparation techniques follow Jaeger (2017). \n Briefly, abdomens were macerated in 10% KOH solution overnight at room tem- \n perature, followed by cursory cleaning, separation of the genitalic capsule, and se- \n quential transfer to 50% EtOH, 70% EtOH, and 95% isopropanol. Vesica and cor- \n pus bursae were inflated in 50% EtOH, then transferred to 70% for staining. Two \n stains (both in ethanol solution) were used, first Chlorazol Black (Fisher Scientific, \n 112 Colonnade Rd., Ottawa, Ontario) for 10 seconds, then acidified Eosin Y (Fisher \n Scientific) for 4 + 4 sec in a microwave (Hamilton Beach model #EM720CPN, \n 700W). Stained tissues were dehydrated in 95% isopropanol before slide-mounting \n in Euparal. Genitalia were imaged using a Leica DFC450 camera, Leica Application \n Suite 4.8 and a Leica M205C stereo microscope, and processed in Adobe PhotoShop. \n Voucher specimens are deposited in the Canadian National Collection of Insects, \n Arachnids and Nematodes, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (CNC), and the private collec- \n tions of the senior author (JKA) and Lance Durden (LDC; 115 Turkey Trail, States- \n boro, Georgia, 30458, USA).","bbox":{"left":0.112121,"top":0.398354,"width":0.775875,"height":0.525023}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}