Contributions to the knowledge of the Depressariidae, Peleopodidae, Ethmiidae and Fuchsiini (Lepidoptera, Gelechioidea) of Romania, with an annotated checklist

In Romania 102 species of Depressariidae, Peleopodidae, Ethmiidae and Fuchsiini were recorded in the last checklist and its supplement (Rákosy et al. 2003; Rákosy and Goia 2007). The present study deals with a total of 117 species ever recorded from Romania including voucher material studied in this overview: 101 Depressariidae, 2 Peleopodidae, 13 Ethmiidae and 1 Fuchsiini. As a result of the analysis of the studied material the Romanian fauna is currently considered to consist of 114 species, 90 of them are confirmed and 24 requiring confirmation. 13 species are recorded for the first time from Romania: Agonopterix bipunctosa (Curtis, 1850), A. coenosella (Zerny, 1940), A. ferocella (Chrétien, 1910), A. irrorata (Staudinger, 1870), A. lessini Buchner, 2017, A. ligusticella (Chrétien, 1908), A. multiplicella (Erschoff, 1877), A. quadripunctata (Wocke, 1857), Depressaria badiella (Hübner, 1796), D. daucella ([Denis & Schiffermüller], 1775), D. sordidatella Tengström, 1848, Exaeretia ledereri (Zeller, 1854) and Anchinia laureolella Herrich-Schäffer, 1854. 2 species are found with unclear taxonomic status: Agonopterix banatica Georgesco, 1965 and Agonopterix dumitrescui Georgesco, 1965. 3 species are formally excluded from the Romanian fauna: Agonopterix agyrella (Rebel, 1917), A. comitella (Lederer, 1855) and Depressaria halophilella (Chrétien, 1908). Additionally, 28 species are first records for different regions of the country and further 15 corrections are made to their distribution within Romania. The examined voucher material is concisely presented by each species, collecting data are presented in detail only in the case of the first records, and a few rarely recorded species, by which the adults, male and occasionally female genitalia are figured.


Introduction
In recent years there has been an increased interest in the research of the European representatives of the family Depressariidae. Several species-groups were critically revised, and some long-lasting problems resolved (Buchner 2017b;Buchner et al. 2017;Buchner and Šumpich 2020).
In order to provide verified data for this paper we started by studying our own material and completed it by examining some other available collections. As a result we managed to verify voucher material for 72 % of the species from the country and compiled the first summary of the Depressariidae, Peleopodidae, Ethmiidae and Fuchsiini of Romania based on the combination of a critical survey of the literature data and the examination of collected material.
During the last decades the classification of the above mentioned taxa mainly followed Karsholt and Razowski (1996), where they were placed in five families: Ethmiidae, Depressariidae, Oecophoridae, Lecithoceridae and Amphisbatidae. This classification was used in the last checklist of the Romanian Lepidoptera . Since then the Ethmiinae and Depressariinae were also treated as subfamilies of the Elachistidae Bruand, 1850 for a short period (Nieukerken et al. 2011: 215).
In 2019, when we started our study of Romanian Depressariidae we followed the classification of the Gelechioidea by Heikkilä et al. (2014: 585) based on the combined analysis of molecular and morphological character data. Accordingly, in the Romanian fauna the family Depressariidae included the subfamilies Cryptolechiinae Meyrick, 1883, Depressariinae Meyrick, 1883, Ethmiinae Busck, 1909, Hypercalliinae Leraut, 1993, Oditinae Lvovsky, 1996, Peleopodinae Hodges, 1974 and the genus Carcina Hübner, 1825. During the preparation of our manuscript another systematic study was published which proposed a more advanced classification system among Gelechioidea than previously (Wang and Li 2020) and elevated to family rank the subfamilies Peleopodinae and Ethmiinae, redefined the Depressariidae and Peleopodidae. This last classification is followed in our work.
The Fuchsiini Lvovsky, 1985 was not treated by Wang and Li (2020), it had an uncertain position within the Gelechioidea in the classification of Heikkilä et al. (2014) and it is placed in the Depressariinae in Fauna Europaea. Having a similar biology to the Depressariinae, it is also included in our study, but as an unplaced tribe.
Species in the families Depressariidae, Peleopodidae and Ethmiidae have already been mentioned in the first publications dealing with Lepidoptera of Romania. Most of the papers were mainly simply enumerations in local or regional faunistic studies (e.g. Fuss 1850 ;Mann 1866;Hedemann 1897;Caradja 1902;Rebel 1911; of characters, but females are much more problematic and some of them do not have at all valuable diagnostic characters. In the case of difficulties in determination based on external characters alone, e.g. in representatives of the Depressaria douglasella species-group or worn specimens, we made as many genitalia preparations as necessary to identify all of the specimens. The identifications have been made using the publications referring to the fauna of Europe and the Palaearctic region (Gozmány 1958;Sattler 1967;Lvovsky 1981;Hannemann 1995;Tokár et al. 2005;Buchner 2015aBuchner , 2015bBuchner , 2017b; BOLD Systems (www.barcodinglife.org)), however, a couple of species were determined or confirmed by P. Buchner. In the case of a few species DNA barcode sequencing of the mitochondrial COI gene has also been undertaken. The data obtained were combined with the results of a critical re-evaluation of the literature data and finally compared with the recently published revisions of different families and genera (see above).
Remarks on morphology, host-plant data, aspects of the classification, systematics and synonymy are not discussed. However, some synonyms and misspellings are mentioned in the annotations if they are published in older Romanian records and only on the first occasion that they are mentioned.
We treat all the species ever recorded from Romania included in three lists depending on whether there are considered part of the fauna, deleted species, and taxa with unclear taxonomic status. The higher classification follows Wang and Li (2020), within the subfamilies we use the classification proposed by Karsholt and Razowski (1996), except the Depressariinae, where recent publications (Buchner 2017b;Buchner et al. 2017) suggest major changes, and so they are provisionally listed in alphabetical order following other similar publications in this field ( Buchner 2017a;Buchner and Šumpich 2018). For all listed taxa a concise annotation has been compiled in a standardized manner providing the general distribution based on the following literature: Hannemann (1995); Tokár et al. (2005); Sonderegger (2013); Buchner (2015bBuchner ( , 2017aBuchner ( , 2017b; Lvovsky et al. (2016); Sattler (2018); Šumpich (2018, 2020); BOLD Systems [accessed on 20.02.2020]; Fauna Europaea [accessed on 20.02.2020]; Lepiforum [accessed on 20.02.2020]. The annotation also includes: the Romanian distribution based on the literature, we follow Rákosy et al. (2003) in the regional division of the country; the rejected records, if earlier records are deleted because of certain misidentifications the reason is given; the examined voucher material usually only has the locality and collector data, but more details are given in the case of first Romanian records, first records for a certain region of the country and a few remarkable species; and remarks. The new Romanian records and a few rarely recorded species are illustrated, usually the adult and male genitalia, the female genitalia are only occasionally figured.

Results
As a result of the present study we deal with a total of 117 species that have been recorded from Romania: 101 Depressariidae, 2 Peleopodidae, 13 Ethmiidae and 1 Fuchsiini, listed in three lists. The first list comprises the species considered to be present in the fauna of the country. Three Depressariidae species are excluded from the Romanian fauna and are included in a second list, and other two with unclear taxonomic status are also listed separately.

Remarks: its wing pattern is similar to that of A. rotundella (Douglas, 1846) and
A. medelichensis Buchner, 2015, which may lead to confusion between them. Its host-plant, Ferulago campestris (Besser) Grecescu does not grow in Banat. Because the record pre-dates the recognition of A. medelichensis as a valid species we consider its presence in Romania to be doubtful, which requires confirmation.
Agonopterix ocellana (Fabricius, 1775) Distribution: Palaearctic. Romanian distribution: widespread, but not yet recorded from Oltenia and Dobrogea (Rákosy et al. 2003: 42 (Hannemann 1996), both without any data. Subsequently it was also listed by Rákosy et al. (2003: 44, 228 Rákosy et al. 2003: 42, 226). The record of Popescu-Gorj (1985a: 104, fig. 2 on the plate of photographs, fig. 11) was based on misidentification, the figures of the adult and the male genitalia depict Exaeretia thurneri (Rebel, 1940). Subsequently all other data were also incorrect identifications, and during this study they all turned out to be E. thurneri.  (Fig. 12). Remarks: adults were collected at light on isolated steppe habitats surrounded by ruderal habitats and arable fields. Contrary to the flying period from mid-April to mid-November given by Lvovsky et al (2016: 104) we collected it only from the end of May to the end of June.

Taxa excluded from the Romanian checklist
Agonopterix agyrella (Rebel, 1917) Distribution: Asian Russia, Mongolia and China. Rejected record: Crișana (Căpușe and Kovács 1987: 50, as argyrella Rebel), the record was based on two specimens collected in Ineu and identified by L. Diószeghy, both were examined and they proved to be A. propinquella (Treitschke, 1935). Remarks: it was described from Siberia, eastern Tannu-Ola Mountains and named after the river Agyr by Rebel (1917a: 193). The type specimen and its genitalia were figured by Buchner and Stănescu (2018: 184) and Buchner and Šumpich (2020: 209). It was not mentioned in the checklist of the Romanian Lepidoptera by Rákosy et al. (2003: 42, 345). Its single report is here rejected and the species is excluded from the Romanian fauna.  Rákosy et al. (2003: 345, 353), but a part of the argumentation used was incorrect. is currently untraceable, probably lost. Owing to the superficial description and the loss of the type material the confirmation of its taxonomic status is not possible.

Discussion
The 117 species treated above summarize our current knowlege of the Depressariidae, Peleopodidae, Ethmiidae and Fuchsiini fauna of Romania. It is the first real evaluation of the fauna based on studied material of 72 % of the known species and of the remaining 28 %, where voucher material was not available, on a critical survey of the literature. Among the 84 examined Depressariidae, Peleopodidae and Ethmiidae species 71 are of earlier records that have been confirmed and 13 are recognized as first records for the Romanian fauna. Ten of the latter are given here for the first time: Agonopterix bipunctosa (Curtis, 1850), A. coenosella (Zerny, 1940), A. ferocella ( Chrétien, 1910), A. irrorata (Staudinger, 1870), A. lessini Buchner, 2017, A. ligusticella (Chrétien, 1908 The examined material also provided data for 28 first records for the regions of Romania: 4 species in Dobrogea, 3 in Muntenia, 9 in Oltenia, 6 in Crișana and 6 in Transylvania. Further, one record for Banat (Székely and Cernea 2007), one for Muntenia (Albu and Albu 2020), and one for Transylvania (Székely and Görbe 2019) are mentioned. Five other earlier published records omitted by Rákosy et al. (2003) were also identified and seven others must be deleted being based on misidentifications. So a total of 43 additions and corrections have been made regarding to the distribution within the regions of Romania.
Among the 33 species listed exclusively from the literature there are only four where the cited publications leave no doubt about the identity of the recorded species, these being Depressaria emeritella Stainton, 1849, Ethmia lugubris (Staudinger, 1879) and E. iranella Zerny, 1940 whose genitalia were illustrated to confirm their identifications (Căpuşe and Szabó 1983;Popescu-Gorj 1984a;Neumann 2000;Buchner and Šumpich 2020), and Ethmia rothschildi Rebel, 1912 because both the original description and a subsequent re-description were based on Romanian material (Rothschild 1912b;Sattler 1967).
Finally Depressaria heydenii Zeller, 1854 was confirmed through the courtesy of P. Buchner (Buchner in litt.) from the female genitalia of a specimen collected in Bucegi Mts.
There might be identification problems in the case of A. nodiflorella (Millière, 1866), A. rotundella (Douglas, 1846), Depressaria beckmanni Heinemann, 1870 and Exaeretia lutosella (Herrich-Schäffer, 1854), species which were often misidentified in the past, their correct identification being possible only based on literature sources published in the last few years and we consider that their presence in the Romanian fauna is in need of confirmation. For details of each particular case see their remarks.
Agonopterix dumitrescui Georgesco, 1965and A. banatica Georgesco, 1965(Georgesco 1965, two species described from Romania, have untraceable type material and superficial descriptions which did not allow the confirmation of their taxonomic status, and so there was insufficient information to form a valid opinion as to whether they are bona species or synonyms of other species. Having unclear taxonomic status they were listed in a separate list. Three species formerly included in the Romanian fauna are removed here and listed in a separate list: Agonopterix agyrella (Rebel, 1917) andA. comitella (Lederer, 1855) were misidentified as we demonstrated above, and Depressaria halophilella (Chrétien, 1908) whose literature data has been wrongly interpreted has already been removed from the checklist by Rákosy et al. (2003).
Consequently, we consider that the Romanian Depressariidae, Peleopodidae, Ethmiidae and Fuchsiini fauna currently consists of 114 species, 90 (79 %) of them have been confirmed and the remaining 24 (21%) requiring confirmation, 2 of the latter have unclear taxonomic status. Three formerly included species are excluded from the checklist.