Anaphes (Anaphes) flavipes (Foerster, 1841)
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.25221/fee.432.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8EBC19E9-BA98-44AF-ACEB-11C085CF06B6 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A1AD3B-E722-9935-FF70-4100FD20C2D1 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Anaphes (Anaphes) flavipes (Foerster, 1841) |
status |
|
Anaphes (Anaphes) flavipes (Foerster, 1841)
Figs 34–42 View Figs 34, 35 View Figs 36–39 View Figs 40–42
Gonatocerus flavipes Foerster, 1841: 45 .
Anaphes flavipes (Foerster) [or as Förster]: Riakhovskiy & Krakhmal’, 1978: 31–32 (host in
Russia); Huber , 1992: 36 (key), 47–50 (taxonomic history, synonymy, type information,
redescription, distribution, hosts, discussion), 74 (list), 100, 104 (illustrations); Samková et al., 2017: 677–690 (neotype designation, taxonomic history, synonymy, redescription,
comparison with A. nipponicus Kuwayama, 1932 , distribution, host associations); Triapitsyn & Tselikh, 2019: 194 (list).
Anaphes lemae Bakkendorf, 1970 : Trjapitzin, 1978: 531 (key, distribution in the European part of the USSR, hosts).
Anaphes auripes Walker, 1846 : Thuróczy & O’Connor, 2015: 56 (records from Ireland,
lectotype habitus image).
Anaphes (Anaphes) flavipes ( Foerster) : Huber & Thuróczy, 2018: 25–26 (list, type information, synonyms), 45 (key), 88 (illustration); Huber et al., 2020: 68–69 (taxonomic history, list of synonyms, hosts and distribution in the Nearctic region ).
MATERIAL EXAMINED. Russia: Moskovskaya oblast’, Noginskiy rayon, Fryazevo,
9.VII 2002, YPT (S. V. Triapitsyn) [1 ♀, UCRC] .
EXTRALIMITAL MATERIAL EXAMINED. Germany: North Rhine-Westphalia:
Aachen, 50.77876°N 6.03816°E, 197 m, 3.VI 2011, from eggs of Oulema sp. on barley (P.
Janšta) [3 ♀, 3 ♂, UCRC]; near Aachen, 50.85732°N 6.40682°E, 103 m, 1. VI GoogleMaps 2011, from eggs of Oulema sp. on barley (P. Janšta) [3 ♀, 3 ♂, UCRC] .
DIAGNOSIS. FEMALE. Diagnosed, redescribed and illustrated in detail by Samková et al. (2017). Here I provide only illustrations of the habitus ( Fig. 34 View Figs 34, 35 ), antenna ( Fig. 36 View Figs 36–39 ), fore and hind wings ( Fig. 37 View Figs 36–39 ), metatarsus ( Fig. 39 View Figs 36–39 ) and ovipositor ( Fig. 38 View Figs 36–39 ) to facilitate its recognition while using the key. The combined length of F1 and F2 either slightly shorter than F3,
as in the lectotype (Samková et al., 2017), or about as long as or slightly longer than F3. In the unusual specimen from Fryazevo, Moskovskaya oblast’, Russia, F2 with 1 mps on one antenna only .
MALE. Known (Samková et al., 2017), who redescribed it. Here I provide only illustrations of the habitus ( Fig. 35 View Figs 34, 35 ), head and antennae ( Fig. 40 View Figs 40–42 ), fore and hind wings
( Fig. 42 View Figs 40–42 ), and genitalia ( Fig. 41 View Figs 40–42 ) to facilitate its recognition.
DISTRIBUTION. Russia; Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine, United Kingdom. Widespread in Europe;
introduced into North America and established in eastern Canada and USA (Huber, 1992;
Samková et al., 2017; Huber & Thuróczy, 2018). Some other records (Noyes, 2019) need verification.
HOSTS. Chrysomelidae : Lema spp. and Oulema spp. including O. duftschmidi (Redten-
bacher, 1874), O. gallaeciana (Heyden, 1870) and O. melanopus (L., 1758) (Donev, 1987;
Huber, 1992; Samková et al., 2017, 2020; Huber et al., 2020).
Various aspects of biology and parasitism of A. (Anaphes) flavipes were studied by Donev
(1987) and Samková et al. (2019a, 2019b, 2019c, 2020).
COMMENTS. As noted above in the Introduction, the record of this species from Leningradskaya oblast’ of Russia by Hellén (1974) was based on a misidentification. Indeed, I examined a card-mounted female specimen (in FMNH) from Zelenogorsk, Kurortnyi rayon,
Saint Petersburg, Russia, labeled only as “flavipes 25, 3,2” (in blue ink, “autumnalis” in pencil on the undesrside), “Terijoki. Hellén.”, and “355”; in the unpublished W. Hellén’s notebooks in the FMNH, this number on light brown paper corresponds to the following information (M. Koponen, personal communication): collected on 16.VI 1927 in a garden. It is definitely not A. (Anaphes) flavipes because it bears 2 mps on F2 of the only remaining antennal flagellum and also has a very long fore wing. Following slide-mounting, I confirmed its identity as A. (Patasson) lineipennis (Soyka, 1949) ; it is a new record of this species from
Russia.
Due to significant intraspecific variability in females of A. (Anaphes) flavipes , as docu-
mented by Samková et al. (2017), I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to separate this species in the key from A. (Anaphes) nipponicus , A. (Anaphes) regulus and A. (Anaphes)
stygius based on any more or less stable, measurable morphological characteristics, as these seem to overlap, including those used in the key by Huber & Thuróczy (2018). Thus, I agree with the opinion of Huber & Thuróczy (2018: 44) that the features they used to distinguish A.
(Anaphes) flavipes, A. (Anaphes) medius , A. (Anaphes) regulus , and A. (Anaphes) stygius are weak, although perhaps I was able to recognize and separate A. (Anaphes) medius in the key with some confidence. Ultimately, validity of these nominal species will need to be tested using genetic evidence, which for now is missing.
Those female specimens of A. (Anaphes) flavipes and A. (Anaphes) nipponicus that have a very short F2, so that the combined length of F1 and F2 is slightly shorter than F3, as in the lectotype of A. (Anaphes) flavipes (Samková et al., 2017) , are very difficult to distinguish from the females of A. (Anaphes) gauthieri Debauche, 1948 . The clava of the female antenna of the latter species is relatively slightly shorter, being at most 3.0× as long as wide, whereas in
A. (Anaphes) flavipes it is at least 3.2× as long as wide (Samková et al., 2017) and in A.
(Anaphes) nipponicus it is at least 3.1× as long as wide.
V |
Royal British Columbia Museum - Herbarium |
UCRC |
University of California, Riverside |
VI |
Mykotektet, National Veterinary Institute |
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Anaphes (Anaphes) flavipes (Foerster, 1841)
Triapitsyn, S. V. 2021 |
Gonatocerus flavipes
Foerster 1841: 45 |