Anagyrus almoriensis Shafee, Alam & Agarwal

Gupta, Ankita, Zeya, Shahid Bin, Pratt, Corin F., Joshi, Sunil & Ballal, Chandish R., 2022, First description of the male of Anagyrus almoriensis Shafee, Alam & Agarwal (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) with details of new host Pseudococcus calceolariae (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) on Rubus ellipticus (Rosaceae) from Himalayas, Zootaxa 5159 (4), pp. 593-600 : 594-599

Anagyrus almoriensis Shafee, Alam & Agarwal

(Figures 1–15)

Female description

DIAGNOSIS: The female of A. almoriensis can be separated from the closely allied species A. levis Noyes & Hayat in having first two funicle segments at least twice as long as wide; ovipositor subqual to mid tiba and apical funicular segments not darkened externally (vs first two funicle segments less than twice as long as wide; ovipositor shorter than mid tiba and apical segments darkened externally). It can be separated from other similar and common Indian species by the presence of only one complete line of setae on the ventral surface of fore wing costal cell (vs two complete lines of seatae in A. agraensis Saraswat ) and first two funicular segments dark (vs only first segment brown in A. chrysos Noyes & Hayat and A. dactylopii (Howard)) .

POINT MOUNT, Fig. 1. Length, 2.3 mm. Body stout, not dorsoventrally flattened. Head largely yellow; occiput dark brown to black, except yellow outer margin, extending ventrally nearly half of the occiput; gena dark brown to black; antennal scrobe yellowish with brown suffusion along lateral margin; mouth fossa dark brown; mandible brown to dark brown; compound eye pale yellow. Antennal radicle, scape largely dark brown to black with subapical white interrupted by brown to dark brown band along dorsal margin; pedicel basally two-thirds dark brown to black, apical third white; F1 dark brown to black; F2 basally brown, becoming lighter distally, the remainder of flagellum white. Mesosoma with pronotum yellow with brown suffusion, lateral edges pale white; mesoscutum yellow with brown suffusion, and with anterior and side margins dark brown to black; mesopleuron, axilla yellowish brown; scutellum yellowish brown with dark brown infuscation longitudinally in middle extending posteriorly two-thirds of scutellum, metanotum and propodeum dark brown to black. Fore wing subhyaline, with venation brown; discal setae black; hind wing hyaline. Legs, including coxae, largely pale yellow, except the following parts: coxae basally slightly infuscate brown with dorsal margin in basal third or so dark brown; fore femur both dorsal and ventral margins dark brown; hind femur, mid and hind tibiae with dorsal margin brown, tarsi of all legs yellow. Metasoma dark brown; hypopygium translucent with slight brown suffusion, reaching up to apex of gaster.

Head. In dorsal view, 1.9× as broad as high; frontovertex width at level of anterior ocellus 0.4× head width; POL 2.9× OOL; eye height 2.6× as long as malar space. Mandible with two sharp teeth. Maxillary palp four segmented, labial palp three segmented. Antenna (Fig. 2) with scape broadened and flattened, 2.0× as long as broad; pedicel slender, slightly dilated apically, 2.2× as long as broad, subequal to F1; funicle segments all distinctly longer than broad, with longitudinal sensilla; F1 longest, F2 and F3 subequal, F4 and F5 subequal, F6 shortest; clava 3.2× as long as broad slightly longer than F1 and F2 combined, distinctly longer than preceding two funicular segments combined; each segment of clava with longitudinal sensilla. Relative measurements (specimen on card): frontovertex width at the level of anterior ocellus, 25.4; scape length (width), 44.3 (21.8); pedicel length, (width), 14.8 (6.7); flagellum length, 92.3; clava length (width), 27.3 (8.6).

Mesosoma (Fig. 1). Pronotum narrow, with rugose reticulate sculpture. Relative measurements (female, card): mesosoma length, 94.7; mesoscutum length (width), 40.2 (81.2); scutellum length (width), 42.1 (47.4). Fore wing (Fig. 3) about 2.2× as long as broad; marginal vein 2.0–2.5× as long as post marginal vein, 0.4–0.5× stigmal vein, 0.08–0.09× submarginal vein; marginal fringe 0.02–0.04× maximum wing width; linea calva interrupted by 8–9 rows of setae; costal cell about 19× as long as broad, with 2–3 rows setae extending ventrally in less than proximal half of the disc, rest with a complete line of dark setae. Hind wing about 3.9× as long as broad with marginal fringe about 0.2× maximum wing width.

Metasoma. Gaster distinctly longer than mesosoma, TI polygonal to longitudinally elongate reticulate sculpture; TII–TIII with polygonal elongate sculpture; TIV–TV faintly elongate sculpture; TVI hardly to see the sculpture; TVII with elongate reticulate sculpture.

SLIDE MOUNT, Figs 2–15. Head with raised reticulate sculpture (Fig. 5), setae, black on vertex region, silvery white on frons beneath anterior ocellus; posterior ocellus separated from occipital margin by slightly more than its own diameter; area between toruli with raised polygonal reticulate sculpture; torulus separated from mouth margin by 0.3× length of its own height (2:6); malar space with longitudinal lineolate reticulate sculpture. Head in frontal view 1.2× as broad as high; frontovertex width at level of anterior ocellus 0.4× head width; POL 2.3× as long as OOL; eye height 2.5×as long as malar space. Mandible with two sharp teeth. Maxillary palp four segmented, labial palp three segmented.Antenna 2.0–2.1× as long as broad; pedicel 2.1–2.5× as long as broad. Relative measurements: head frontal height (width), 40 (48); frontovertex width at level of anterior ocellus, 17; AOL, 3; POL, 6; OOL, 2; eye height, 29.5; malar space, 12; scape (n=2) length (width), 26–33.75 (12.5–16); pedicel (n=2) length, (width), 8.5−10(4); flagellum length, 83; clava length (width), 22 (6.3). Mesoscutum 0.9× scutellum, setose with thick setae (Fig. 6); each axilla with more than 20 setae; mesoscutum and axilla with fine raised sculpture; scutellum (Fig. 7) setose with thick and silvery white setae, and with fine raised sculpture; propodeum medially smooth, sides with polygonal reticulate sculpture, and sparsely setose. Relative measurements: mesosoma length, 60; mesoscutum length (width), 24 (48); scutellum length (width), 27 (28); fore wing (n=2) length (width), 117–136 (54–62); marginal fringe length (n=2), 3; submarginal vein (n=2), 50–54; marginal vein (n=2), 4–5; post marginal vein (n=2), 2–3; stigmal vein (n=2), 9–10; hind wing length (width), 82 (21); marginal fringe length, 4; mid tibia length, 51; mid basitarsus length, 18.5; mid tibial spur length, 15. Ovipositor (Fig. 8) slightly exserted beyond apex of gaster. Relative measurements: TVII length, 59; TVII width between cercal plates, 26; ovipositor length, 54 [Ovipositor 1.05× as long as mid tibia length].

Male Description

DIAGNOSIS: The male of A. almoriensis can be differentiated from males of other closely allied species in having antenna with scape white in basal third, remainder brown (vs scape white with a dark brown spot on its dorsal margin in apical half in A. chrysos (Noyes & Hayat) and A. dactylopii (Howard) ; scape white with apical half completely dark brown in A. psuedococci (Girault) as per respective male descriptions mentioned in Noyes & Hayat (1994)).

Length, 1.1 mm (specimen on card, NIM (ICAR- NBAIR)), 1.0 mm (on slide, NIM (ICAR- NBAIR)). Body dark brown. Head dark brown; antenna with scape white in basal third, remainder brown, with dorsal margin dark brown; pedicel, first and last flagellar segments dark brown, remainder of the flagellar segments white, shaded with brown. Mesosoma dark brown, covered with white and fine setae. Gaster dark brown (it appears dark brown with intersegmental area white in 10% KOH); gastral sternites translucent with brown suffusion; genitalia brown. Legs with fore and mid coxae white, basally slightly infuscate brown; fore femur white with dorsal edge brown, fore and hind tibiae brown; mid femur pale brown, tibia basally brown; hind femur brown to dark brown; hind tibia brown; tarsi of all legs brown to dark brown except mid basitarsus white.

Head. Mandible with two pointed teeth (Fig. 10). Antenna (Fig. 11) with scape 3× as long as broad; pedicel quadrate; scape and pedicel with sculpture as in Fig. 12, flagellar segments all distinctly longer than broad, all flagellar segments with long setae, and with longitudinal sensilla. Relative measurements (slide): scape length (width), 12 (4); pedicel length, (width), 4 (4); flagellum length, 64. Sixth flagellar sement with five erect scale-like sensillae.

Mesosoma. Pronotum narrow, with rugose reticulate sculpture; mesoscutum subequal in length to scutellum, setose with thick setae; each axilla with 9–10 setae; mesoscutum and axilla (Fig. 15) with fine raised sculpture; scutellum (Fig. 15) sparsely setose with thick setae, largely with fine raised sculpture and posteriorly with elongate raised sculpture; propodeum medially smooth, sides with rugose to polygonal reticulate sculpture, and with setation as in female. Fore wing (Fig. 13) 2.1× as long as broad; marginal vein as long as post marginal vein, 0.4× stigmal vein, 0.1× submarginal vein; marginal fringe 0.1× maximum wing width; linea calva interrupted by 2–3 rows of setae; costal cell with 2–3 rows of setae. Hind wing 3.8× as long as broad with marginal fringe 0.4× maximum wing width. Relative measurements (male, slide mounted specimen): mesosoma length, 39; mesoscutum length, 17; scutellum length 18; fore wing length (width), 83 (39); marginal fringe length, 3; submarginal vein, 32; marginal vein, 2; post marginal vein, 2; stigmal vein, 5; hind wing length (width), 53 (14); marginal fringe length, 5; mid tibia length, 33; mid tibial spur length, 8.

Metasoma (Fig. 14). Metasoma longer than mesosoma; petiole 3× as broad as long (12:4); TI with polygonal to longitudinally elongate reticulate sculpture; TII–TVII with scarcely visible sculpture. Male genitalia markedly exserted beyond apex of gaster, 0.8× metasoma. Relative measurements (specimen on slide): metasoma length (width), 45 (26); male genitalia, 37; phallobase, 30.

Material examined. Female (on card, No. Enc/Anag/20819/1), labelled “ INDIA: HIMACHAL PRADESH: Palampur, ex. Pseudococcus calceolarieae (Maskell) on Rubus ellipticus 20.viii.2019, Coll. S. K. Rajeswari” (NIM (ICAR-NBAIR)), one female (on card, No. Enc/Anag/20819/2), one female (in alcohol, No. Enc/Anag/20819/3), one male (on card, No. Enc/Anag/20819/4), one male (on slide under 4 coverslips, No. Enc/Anag/20819/5), NIM (ICAR-NBAIR), data same as above. One female (under 4 coverslips, ZDAMU), data same as above.

Comments. The male of A. almoriensis was not described by Shafee et al. 1975 although three male paratypes were listed. Noyes & Hayat (1994) noted that they could not locate any of the male paratypes. We were also unable to locate the three male paratypes in the Zoological Museum of Aligarh Muslim University. Furthermore, the slide containing the holotype female had turned fully transparent (Fig. 17). This prompted us to describe the male and female based on fresh collections.

Host/biology. Pseudococcus calceolariae on the host plant Rubus ellipticus (Fig. 16) is a new host for A. almoriensis , and was previously reported from Nipaecoccus vastator (Maskell) and N. viridis (Newstead) ( Shafee et al. 1975; Noyes & Hayat, 1994).

Distribution. India: Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh - Almora (now in Uttarakhand).

Discussion. Based on field observations during this study it is noticed that Pseudococcus calceolariae is a natural bioagent of the invasive weed R. ellipticus , however presence of A. almoriensis might be a potential limiting factor in the establishment and spread of P. calceolariae . No hyperparasitoids of A. almoriensis were observed during the surveys. Since the only known hosts of A. almoriensis reported till date are Nipaecoccus viridis and N. vastator hence there is no evidence of A. almoriensis parasitizing P. calceolariae prior to this study. Nevertheless, there is always a possibility that it may negatively impact biocontrol efforts against the weed within its invasive range.

As the holotype slide is fully transparent and cannot be re-mounted, a neotype could be designated in this case. This should be considered during a future comprehensive revision of Indian Anagyrus .