Sycophilodes Joseph, 1961

Yang, Xiao-Fang, Rasplus, Jean-Yves, Feng, Zhi-Rong, Miao, Bai-Ge, Peng, Yan-Qiong, Yang, Da-Rong, Chen, Huayan & Wang, Bo, 2024, Description of two new species of Sycophilodes (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Epichrysomallidae) from China with a key to species of the genus, Zootaxa 5446 (4), pp. 517-530 : 518-520

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5446.4.4
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:528B6F0B-9137-4C06-B3FB-4DEF4198BC11
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11121789
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03AD8798-FF90-4C66-FF34-FCB83EFCFAED
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Sycophilodes Joseph, 1961
status

Treatment

Sycophilodes Joseph, 1961 View in CoL View at ENA

Sycophilodes Joseph, 1961: 92 View in CoL .

Type species: Sycophilodes moniliformis Joseph, 1961 View in CoL , by original designation.

Diagnosis. Head transverse; lower face with engraved reticulation; frons smooth. Mandibles tridentate, appearing bidentate with a large malar ridge. Clypeal margin bilobed; anterior tentorial pit, epistomal and subantennal sulci conspicuous. Antennae inserted below the center of face (distance between clypeal margin and median ocellus) but above lower ocular line; antennal formula 11173 in female, 11163 in male. Malar sulcus conspicuous. Occipital carina present close to occipital foramen, sometimes faint and difficult to observe. Mesosoma dorsally smooth, pronotum with engraved reticulation. Notauli thin and shallow, visible as a line of small circular punctures, reaching (or nearly so) transscutal articulation lateral of scutoscutellar suture. Mesoscutellum with two pairs of strong setae. Propodeum anteriorly with a triangular area with crenulation; plicae conspicuous; propodeal spiracle partially covered by a lateral flap. Petiole transverse. Fore wing hyaline with distinct postmarginal vein, marginal vein at most 1.8× stigmal length, postmarginal vein conspicuous about half the length of stigmal vein. All tarsi 5-segmented.

Biology. All described species of Sycophilodes are associated with either Ficus benghalensis or F. altissima , two related fig species belonging to section Conosycea of the subgenus Urostigma (strangler figs). They are supposed to be gall inducers on fig flowers in young syconia. However, their biology is fully documented only for the two species described herein and associated with F. altissima ( Peng et al. 2010) .

Relationships. Based on its placement in the generic key to oriental Epichrysomallidae by Narendran & Sheela (1994), Pramanik & Dey (2014) suggested a close relationship of Sycophilodes with Neosycophila Grandi. However , despite sharing some characters with Neosycophila (number of flagellomeres, presence of a weak occipital carina), Sycophilodes differs conspicuously by possessing an elongated mesosoma with oblique propodeum,a bilobed clypeus, the presence of a deep epistomal sulcus, a transverse head, and several other characters. Though no formal analysis has been performed, these features suggest instead a close relationship with the Afrotropical epichrysomallid genera Lachaisea Rasplus and Sycomacophila Rasplus , and the Oriental Camarothorax Mayr. Sycophilodes (misidentified as Sycophilomorpha , by one of us, JYR) was recovered sister to all other genera associated with figs of the sections Conosycea and Malvanthera in the phylogeny of Chalcidoidea inferred from 18S and 28S rDNA sequences ( Munro et al. 2011). This phylogenetic position fits better with its biology and morphology. Indeed, Sycophilodes is associated with Conosycea fig trees, a section belonging to the subgenus Urostigma (stranglers). This subgenus also contains the sections Galoglychia (hosts of Lachaisea Rasplus ) and Urostigma (hosts of Camarothorax ), while Neosycophila is strictly associated with the subgenus Terega (= Sycidium ). Morphologically, the three genera ( Sycophilodes , Camarothorax and Lachaisea ) appear closely related and differ from Neosycophila by having a bilobed clypeal margin (vs slightly emarginate in Neosycophila ), the supraclypeal area being separated from the clypeus by a sulcus (vs fused), the presence of at least 2 strong setae on the mesoscutellum (vs one), the lower mesepimeron being separated from the lower mesepisternum by a conspicuous (vs inconspicuous) mesopleural suture, and the lower metepisternum being mostly sclerotized posteriorly (vs membranous).

Key to Sycophilodes View in CoL View at ENA species

1 Antennal formula 11173 ( Figs 2C View FIGURE 2 , 4D View FIGURE 4 ); wing pilosity sparse ( Figs 2G View FIGURE 2 , 4G View FIGURE 4 ); metatibia and basitarsus black-brown. Female.. 2

- Antennal formula 11163 ( Figs 3C View FIGURE 3 , 5C View FIGURE 5 ); wing pilosity dense ( Figs 3G View FIGURE 3 , 5G View FIGURE 5 ); metatibia and basitarsus yellowish. Male...... 5

2 Hind femur with a large tooth-like expansion protruding ventrally ( Fig. 4B View FIGURE 4 ); epistomal sulcus and malar sulcus shallow ( Fig. 4C View FIGURE 4 ).......................................................... S. densfemur Yang, Peng and Rasplus , sp. nov.

- Hind femur without ventral tooth-like expansion ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ); epistomal and malar sulcus deep and conspicuous ( Fig. 3C View FIGURE 3 ).... 3

3 Pronotum and mesonotum dorsally yellow without black patch ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 27); postmarginal vein shorter than stigmal vein ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 29)............................. S. uluberiaensis Pramanik and Dey

- Pronotum and mesonotum dorsally blackish ( Figs 2E, 2F View FIGURE 2 , 4E, 4F View FIGURE 4 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 29); postmarginal vein longer than stigmal vein ( Figs 2H View FIGURE 2 , 4H View FIGURE 4 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 9)................................................ 4

4 Clypeus less than 1.5× as wide as long and supraclypeal area transverse ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 2); epistomal suture curved in the middle ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 2); head in frontal view strongly transverse, about 1.3× as wide as high ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 2). Associated with F. benghalensis View in CoL ............................. S. moniliformis Joseph View in CoL

- Clypeus about 2.0× as wide as long ( Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ) and supraclypeal area subquadrate ( Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ); epistomal suture straight ( Fig. 2D View FIGURE 2 ); head in frontal view about 1.2× as wide as high ( Fig. 2C View FIGURE 2 ). Associated with F. altissima View in CoL ............................................................................................ S. altissimae Yang, Peng and Rasplus , sp. nov.

5 Clypeus subquadrate, at most 1.2–1.3× as wide as long ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ); hind femur with a large round expansion protruding on ventral margin; propodeum anteriorly with only a large fovea, without a median groove ( Fig. 5F View FIGURE 5 ).......................................................................................... S. densfemur Yang, Peng and Rasplus , sp. nov.

- Clypeus transverse, at least 1.5× as wide as long ( Fig. 3D View FIGURE 3 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, figs 12, 32); hind femur without a large round expansion on ventral margin ( Fig. 3B View FIGURE 3 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, figs 11, 31); propodeum with a long median groove extending posteriorly at least 4/5 of propodeum length ( Fig. 3F View FIGURE 3 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, figs 17, 37).................. 6

6 Antennal toruli separated by distance subequal to torulus diameter ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 32); body dorsally yellowish with ocellar triangle, metanotal median line, apex of mesoscutellum and tergites dorsally brownish dark ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 37); stigmal vein short and thick, about as thick as marginal vein ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 39)................................................................................... S. uluberiaensis Pramanik and Dey

- Antennal toruli separated by distance less than torulus diameter ( Figs 3D View FIGURE 3 , 5D View FIGURE 5 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 12); body dorsally mostly blackish ( Figs 3E, 3F View FIGURE 3 , 5E, 5F View FIGURE 5 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, figs 17, 18); stigmal vein relatively longer and thin, thinner than marginal vein at insertion ( Figs 3H View FIGURE 3 , 5H View FIGURE 5 ; Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 20)......................................... 7

7 Stigmal vein at almost a right angle to marginal and submarginal veins ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 20); propodeal median groove wide and transversely carinate ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 18); supraclypeal area subquadrate ( Pramanik and Dey 2014, fig. 12)...................................................................... S. moniliformis Joseph View in CoL

- Stigmal vein forming about 60° angle relative to submarginal vein ( Fig. 3H View FIGURE 3 ); propodeal median groove narrow and without transverse carinae; supraclypal area transverse........................ S. altissimae Yang, Peng and Rasplus , sp. nov.