Wing venation is mostly used in distinguishing genera, tribes, etc, not species. In describing species, if one places it in a genus, it automatically means that the wing venation is described under the generic description, so there is no need to repeat it in the species description, although some authors routinely show wing venation, leg structure as well as male and female genitalia while describing new species. The important thing is to clearly show the feature that distinguishes the new taxon from known taxa, whether this is genitalia, wing venation, leg structure, palpi or anything else.

Wing venation is mostly used in distinguishing genera, tribes, etc, not species. In describing species, if one places it in a genus, it automatically means that the wing venation is described under the generic description, so there is no need to repeat it in the species description, although some authors routinely show wing venation, leg structure as well as male and female genitalia while describing new species. The important thing is to clearly show the feature that distinguishes the new taxon from known taxa, whether this is genitalia, wing venation, leg structure, palpi or anything else.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_significant_is_the_role_of_wing_venation_or_neuration_in_taxonomy_of_moths

The given RG link might be of some help to you

Your question is quite interesting. From a general point of view I would say that after decades of practice there is the general perception that no single morphological trait may work well for all purposes (e.g. diagnosis) at all taxonomic levels for all taxa.

Wing venation is more important at some levels and no so much elsewhere; however the trait was strongly supported as useful at high taxonomic levels since long ago as it is relatively evident in the Lepidoptera and other insect Orders.