Cotesia elongata Zargar & Gupta, 2019
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2019.571 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:89B1D35C-8162-403C-BF95-7853C62D27D1 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/79D3997B-4118-42F3-A579-2E1B75BB4FE7 |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:79D3997B-4118-42F3-A579-2E1B75BB4FE7 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Cotesia elongata Zargar & Gupta |
status |
sp. nov. |
Cotesia elongata Zargar & Gupta sp. nov.
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:79D3997B-4118-42F3-A579-2E1B75BB4FE7
Fig. 1 View Fig
Diagnosis
Penultimate segment of antenna 2.2× as long as wide; mesoscutum densely evenly punctate, in lateral lobes presence of smooth area near tegula; notauli indicated by dense punctations; scutellum sparsely punctate in anterior half, punctation dense in posterior half ( Fig. 1C View Fig ); pterostigma 4.0× as long as wide, light brown; vein 1–R1 1.4 × as long as pterostigma, 3.0× as long as distance from end of vein 1–R1 to tip of radial cell ( Fig. 1D View Fig ); third tergite median length 0.7 × as long as second tergite ( Fig. 1E View Fig ).
Etymology
The name is derived from the Latin ‘ elongata ’, meaning ‘elongate’, and referring to the second metasomal tergite, which is longer than third tergite, while in the closely related species, Cotesia ruficrus ( Haliday, 1834) , it is shorter than the third tergite.
Material examined
Holotype
IRAN • ♀; Khuzestan Province, Dezful, Shahrak-e Shahid Mohammad Montazeri ; 32°26′83.16″ N, 48°37′67.79″ E; 97 m a.s.l.; 22 May 2017; M. Zargar leg.; Malaise trap; citrus orchards; ICAR-NBAIR/ NIM/MICROG/COT/22517H.
Paratypes
IRAN • 4 ♀♀; Khuzestan Province, Dezful, Qaleh-ye Rob-e Bandbal; 32°17ʹ27.94″ N, 48°25′46.98″ E; 97 m a.s.l.; 20 Mar. –3 Apr. 2016, 7–21 Jun. 2017; TMUC-HBMC0001-0004 GoogleMaps • 3 ♀♀; Shamsabad; 32°29ʹ64.65″ N, 48°42′57.45″ E; 94 m a.s.l.; 8–22 May 2017, 5–19 Jun. 2017;TMUC-HBMC0005-0007 • 9 ♀♀; Zoviyeh ; 31°46ʹ20.56″ N, 48°48′01.17″ E; 30 m a.s.l.; 5–19 Jun. 2017;TMUC-HBMC0008-0016 GoogleMaps • 10 ♀♀; Lali, Taraz ; 32°20ʹ49.70″ N, 49°05′11.31″ E; 390 m a.s.l.; 3–17 Mar. 2016, 4–18 May 2016, 5–19 Mar. 2017, 5–19 May 2017, 22 Jun.–6 Jul. 2017; TMUC-HBMC00017-0026, ICAR-NBAIR/NIM/ MICROG/COT/4516 GoogleMaps • 5 ♀♀; Andika, Chezi; 32°08ʹ02.78″ N, 49°38′30.56″ E; 650 m a.s.l.; 20 Apr. –4 May 2016, 4–18 Jun. 2016, 22 May–6 Jun. 2017, 22 Jun.–6 Jul. 2017; TMUC-HBMC00027-0031 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; Doorab ; 32°12ʹ23.00″ N, 49°26′37.00″ E; 760 m a.s.l.; 20 Apr.–4 May 2016; TMUC-HBMC0032 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 4–18 Jun. 2016; ICAR-NBAIR/ NIM /MICROG/COT/4616 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 4–18 Apr. 2017; NBAIR / NIM /MICROG/COT/4417 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 5–19 Jun 2017; NBAIR / NIM /MICROG/COT/5617 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 22 Jun.–6 Jul. 2017; NBAIR / NIM /MICROG/COT/22617 GoogleMaps • 6 ♀♀; Baghmalek, Ghaletol ; 31°37ʹ49.70″ N, 49°52′53.35″ E; 880 m a.s.l.; 3–17 Apr. 2016, 4– 18 May 2016, 21 May– 5 Jun. 2016, 22 Jun. – 6 Jul. 2017; TMUC-HBMC0033-0038 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 21 May– 5 Jun. 2016; ICAR-NBAIR/ NIM /MICROG/COT/21516 GoogleMaps • 4 ♀♀; Shang ; 31°31ʹ46.00″ N, 49°53′14.61″ E; 716 m a.s.l.; 20 Mar. – 4 Apr. 2016, 4– 18 May 2016, 5– 19 May 2017, 4– 18 Jul. 2017; TMUC-HBMC0039-0042 GoogleMaps • 2 ♀♀; Dobagh ; 31°31ʹ16.14″ N, 49°52′53.00″ E; 688 m a.s.l.; 3– 17 Apr. 2016, 4– 18 Jun. 2016; Malaise trap; citrus orchards; M. Zargar leg.; TMUC- HBMC 0043-0044 GoogleMaps • 1 ♀; same collection data as for preceding; 3– 17 Apr. 2016; ICAR-NBAIR/ NIM / MICROG/COT/3416 GoogleMaps .
Description
Female
MEASUREMENTS. Body length 3 mm, fore wing length 2.9 mm.
HEAD ( Fig. 1 View Fig A–B). Smooth except shallowly punctate on face; width of head in dorsal view 1.8× as long as height; width of face 1.4× as long as height; POL:MOD:OOL 4.1: 2:4.5; gena 0.7 × as long as width of eyes; malar space 1.5× as long as width of mandibular base; antenna as long as body; flagellomeres finely setose. FL1 l/w: 3.5, FL12 l/w: 2.4, FL13 l/w: 2.3, FL14 l/w:2.2, FL15 l/w: 2.2.
MESOSOMA ( Fig. 1C View Fig ). Mesoscutum densely evenly punctate, in lateral lobes presence of smooth area near tegula; notauli indicated by dense punctation; scutellum weakly punctate in anterior half, densely punctate in posterior half; scutellar sulcus crenulate; postscutellum crenulate and shiny; prepectal carina absent; propodeum coarsely rugose to scabrous.
WINGS ( Fig. 1D View Fig ). Areolet absent, vein r arising little after middle of pterostigma; vein 1–R1 1.4× as long as pterostigma, 2.8 × as long as distance from end of vein 1–R1 to tip of radial cell, 4.0 × as long as vein r; pterostigma 4.0× as long as wide; vein r as long as 2–SR; vein 1–cu1 as long as vein 2–cu1; width of discoidal cell 1.1× as long as height.
LEGS ( Fig. 1F View Fig ). Metacoxa 1.3× as long as first tergite; metafemur length 4.0× as long as median width; inner and outer spur of metatibia equal, 0.4× as long as basitarsus.
METASOMA ( Fig. 1E View Fig ). TI slightly widening toward apex, 1.1× longer than apical width; apical width 1.7× as long as basal width, rugose. TII apical width 1.9 × longer than median length. TIII median length 0.7× as long as TII; tergites posterior to TII smooth and shiny with single row of setae near hind margin; ovipositor sheath 0.5× as long as metabasitarsus; hypopygium 0.7 × as long as metatibia, truncated apically.
COLOUR. Antenna, head, mesosoma black; metasoma yellowish brown except first and second tergite; labial palp and maxillary palp testaceous; tegula yellowish brown; profemur, mesofemur reddish brown; metafemur reddish brown except black spot at apex; tibiae reddish brown; protarsus and mesotarsus reddish brown, metatarsus dark brown; pterostigma light brown.
Male
Unknown.
Host
Unknown.
Biology
Unknown.
Comment
In the keys provided by Nixon (1974), Papp (1986) and van Achterberg & Polaszek (1996), Cotesia elongata sp. nov. runs close to Cotesia ruficrus ( Haliday, 1834) ; it can, however, be separated from the latter by the following characters: (1) penultimate segment of antenna 2–2.2 (–2.3) × as long as wide vs 1.5 and 1.7 × in Nixon (1974) and van Achterberg & Polaszek (1996), respectively, (2) third tergite 0.7–0.8 × as long as second tergite ( Fig. 1E View Fig ) vs 1.2–1.4 in Papp (1986).
The new species can be included in the identification key of Cotesia compiled by Nixon (1974), which is modified below:
14. Antenna short, rather thick, preapical segment about one-and-a-quarter× as long as wide; legs dark brownish or obscurely brownish yellow throughout; mesopleuron anterior to and ventral to sternaulus, very shiny and with sharp discrete punctation ..................... C. amabilis ( Nixon, 1974)
– Antenna longer and decidedly thin.................................................................................................A
A. Preapical segment of antenna fully one-and-a-half× as long as wide; mesopleuron anterior to and ventral to sternaulus, tending to be dull and evenly rugose................... C. ruficrus ( Haliday, 1834)
– Preapical segment of antenna 2–2.2 (–2.3) × as long as wide; mesopleuron anterior to and ventral to sternaulus, tending to be punctate ...................................... C. elongata Zargar & Gupta sp. nov.
The new species can be included in the identification key of Cotesia compiled by Papp (1974), which is modified below:
10. First tergite at most as long as wide at hind, usually slightly shorter; second tergite slightly shorter than, or sometimes as long as third tergite; head in dorsal view somewhat less rounded behind eyes; hind coxa always reddish yellow................................................. C. kariyai (Watanabe,1937)
– First tergite usually slightly longer than wide at hind ....................................................................A
A. Second tergite one-fourth to one-fifth shorter than third tergite; third tergite usually more or less and fourth tergite less usually with yellow to reddish yellow pattern; tegulae yellow to vivid yellow .................................................................................................... C. ruficrus ( Haliday, 1834)
– Second tergite 1.2–1.3 × as long as third tergite; third and fourth tergite yellowish brown ( Fig. 1E View Fig ); tegulae yellow......................................................................... C. elongata Zargar & Gupta sp. nov.
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 |