Neopomphale quercicola (Dozier) HANSSON & LASALLE, 2003

HANSSON, C. & LASALLE, J., 2003, Revision of the Neotropical species of the tribe Euderomphalini (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), Journal of Natural History 37 (6), pp. 697-778 : 722

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222930110096744
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:978AA7CC-7167-41BE-AC06-FFEE13D1A599
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5272610
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FFC309-EE57-250F-FDC5-FEACFC60F94C
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Neopomphale quercicola (Dozier)
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Neopomphale quercicola (Dozier) View in CoL comb. n.

(figures 45, 46)

Euderomphale quercicola Dozier, 1933: 85 View in CoL .

Euderomphale quercicola Dozier (LaSalle and Schauff, 1994) View in CoL .

Diagnosis

Female flagellum with clava enlarged (figure 45); male flagellum comparatively stout (figure 46).

Description See Dozier (1933).

Material examined

L: X of E. quercicola (in USNM) hereby designated, paralectotypes of same species (3 W in USNM) hereby designated .

Additional material. Costa Rica (8 X 2 W, BMNH, LUZM, INBio, MIUCR), the West Indies ( Bahamas, 1 X, CNC), Guatemala (1 X 1 W, CNC), Honduras (2 X, EAP), Mexico (2 X, TAMU).

Hosts Tetraleurodes sp. on Quercus virginiana (Dozier, 1933) .

Distribution

Costa Rica (new record), Guatemala (new record), Honduras (new record), Mexico (new record), the USA (Dozier, 1933), the West Indies ( Bahamas) (new record).

Remarks

The type material of quercicola consists of four specimens (Dozier, 1933), all slide mounted and kept at USNM. These include three reared specimens (from Tetraleurodes sp. ), one female (on one slide) and two males (both on same slide), and an additional male (on one slide), identified as a female in the original description, taken on the foliage of the same tree (and on same date) as the host of the reared specimens. The reared female has been labelled as holotype, the two reared males as allotypes, and the caught male as paratype. However, there are no indications in the original description that any of the four specimens was selected as primary type. The only specimen given a status in the original description is the caught specimen (cited as female in the original description), and this was regarded as a paratype. Due to this we have selected the reared female as lectotype and the remaining three specimens (all males) as paralectotypes.