Celonites sibiricus Gusenleitner, 2007

Fateryga, A. V., 2020, NEW RECORDS OF CELONITES KOZLOVI KOSTYLEV, 1935 AND C. SIBIRICUS GUSENLEITNER, 2007 (HYMENOPTERA: VESPIDAE: MASARINAE), WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR BEHAVIOR AT FLOWERS, Far Eastern Entomologist 405, pp. 20-32 : 26-28

Celonites sibiricus Gusenleitner, 2007

Figs 10–14 , 22–24

Celonites sibiricus Gusenleitner, 2007: 133–134 , ♀ ♂ (type locality: “ Russia, Sibiria , Altaya,

Cevero-Chuyskiy”), holotype, ♂, in the collection of J. T. Smit , Duiven, The Netherlands ;

Fateryga et al., 2017: 32, Russia (Altai); Antropov & Fateryga, 2017: 178, Russia (Altai).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Russia: Altai 15 km SE Kuray, Chuya River valley

(50°11′10″N 88°07′04″E), 5.VII 2016, 1 ♀, leg. M.Yu. Proshchalykin, V. M. Loktionov ;

2 km SE Chagan-Uzun, Balkhash River valley (50°05′35″N 88°23′22″E), 9.VII 2016, 7 ♀ ,

leg. M.Yu. Proshchalykin, V.M. Loktionov; 5 km SE Chagan-Uzun, Tydtuyaryk River valley

(50°04′25″N 88°25′12″E), 11.VII 2016, 5 ♀, leg. M.Yu. Proshchalykin, V. M. Loktionov

[ FSCV]; ibid., 8.VII 2019, 4 ♀, 4 ♂, 9.VII 2019, 1 ♀, 1 ♂, 10.VII 2019, 1 ♂, leg. A. V .

Fateryga [ CAFK, CVMM, ZISP]; ibid ., 8–9.VII 2019, 4 ♀, leg. Yu.N. Danilov [ ISEN]; ibid .,

9.VII 2019, 3 ♀, leg. V. O. Dorofeev [ ASUB]; 12 km SE Aktash, Chuya River valley

(50°13′51″N 87°42′59″E), 13.VII 2016, 1 ♀, leg. M.Yu. Proshchalykin, V. M. Loktionov

[ FSCV]; 24 km NWW Aktash, Chuya River valley (50°21′31″N 87°16′15″E), 6.VII 2019,

3 ♀, 4 ♂, 7.VII 2019, 2 ♀, 1 ♂, leg. A. V. Fateryga [ CAFK, CVMM]; ibid., 6.VII 2019 , 1 ♂,

7.VII 2019, 1 ♀, leg. V. O. Dorofeev [ ASUB]. Kazakhstan: East Kazakhstan Prov.: Central

Tarbagatay , 80 km S Aksuat, 13.VII 1986, 9 ♀, 1 ♂, leg. V . L. Kazenas [ FSCV] .

DISTRIBUTION. Russia (Altai), Kazakhstan (new record) (East Kazakhstan Prov.),

( Fig. 5 ).

BIONOMICS. Celonites sibiricus was observed in both field study areas that were the

Tydtuyaryk River valley and the Chuya River valley ( Figs 6 and 9 ). Females of this species visited flowers of both species of Dracocephalum and occasionally Geranium sibiricum

( Table 1). At the same time, they did not visit Nepeta sibirica in the Chuya River valley, two species of Panzerina in the Tydtuyaryk River valley, and Ziziphora clinopodioides in both habitats. Pollen collecting was observed only at flowers of Dracocephalum spp. During visits to D. peregrinum flowers, females alighted on the lower lip of the corolla and started pollen uptake by rubbing the head over the anthers which was accompanied by alternating movements of the fore legs brushing pollen from the frons towards the mouthparts. Mid and hind legs were used to hold onto the corolla ( Fig. 10 ). The duration of pollen uptake was significantly shorter (about 5–10 sec.) than in C. kozlovi . After that, females moved deeply inside the corolla tube to take up nectar, which was similar to nectar-collecting behavior in

C. kozlovi (the duration of nectar uptake was also about 5 sec.). While visiting several flowers on the same inflorescence, the females moved upwards along the inflorescence flying from flower to flower from its base towards the top.

Pollen-collecting behavior of the females at flowers of D. nutans ( Fig. 11 ) was similar to that on D. peregrinum . Nectar collecting, however, was different: females did not move deeply inside the corolla tube; instead, the posterior half of their mesosoma and the whole metasoma remained visible from outside ( Fig. 12 ). The difference was caused by the different shape and size of the corolla in these two plant species. Dracocephalum peregrinum has a broad corolla ( Fig. 15 ) and both Celonites species can move deeply inside it. The corolla of D. nutans is much narrower in its basal half ( Fig. 16 ). The proboscis of

C. sibiricus , however, is long enough ( Fig. 18 ) to reach nectar in the flower of D. nutans without inserting the head into the basal half of the corolla tube, while the proboscis of

C. kozlovi is shorter due to the smaller size of that species ( Fig. 17 ).

valley; 10 – female collecting pollen on a flower of Dracocephalum peregrinum L. by rubbing her head over the anthers combined with alternating movements of her fore legs brushing pollen from the frons towards the mouthparts; 11 – female collecting pollen on a flower of D. nutans L. in the same way; 12 – female collecting nectar on a flower of

D. nutans ; 13 – female standing on a stone and brushing pollen from the frons towards the mouthparts by alternating movements of the fore legs subsequent to visit of several flowers;

14 – male perching on a stone.

Pollen and nectar collecting at flowers of Dracocephalum spp. was periodically interrupted by alighting on the ground, small stones, or fragments of horse dung, where the females remained on the surface for up to a minute. During the first half of such a stay,

females performed rapid movements of their metasoma: they alternately pulled it out and drew it back. After that, they brushed pollen from the frons towards the mouthparts by alternating movements of the fore legs ( Fig. 13 ). Often they also partially extended the proboscis and brushed over it as well. Then, they usually returned to flower visiting.

extended proboscises of Celonites spp. (17–18), lateral view: 15 – D. peregrinum L.; 16 –

D. nutans L.; 17 – C. kozlovi Kostylev ; 18 – C. sibiricus Gusenleitner.

During the single observed flower visit of a female at Geranium sibiricum , the female landed on a petal holding onto it with all her legs and simply inserted the proboscis into the flower. The duration of the visit was about 10 sec.

Flight activity started in the morning at 7.40–9.05 (solar time) and finished in the late afternoon at various times depending on the weather.

Males of C. sibiricus were observed mainly perching on the ground and small stones

( Fig. 14 ) among patches of Dracocephalum spp. They also visited flowers of D. nutans and

G. sibiricum for nectar feeding ( Table 1). Courtship and copulation were not observed.

Figures

Figs 9–14. Bionomics of Celonites sibiricus Gusenleitner: 9 – habitat in the Chuya River

Figs 19–24. SEM micrographs of Celonites spp. structures: 19 – head of C. kozlovi Kostylev; 20 – its frons covered with short setae not suitable for pollen collecting; 21 – the

Fig. 5. Distribution of Celonites kozlovi Kostylev and C. sibiricus Gusenleitner (back-

Figs 6–8. Bionomics of Celonites kozlovi Kostylev: 6 – habitat in the Tydtuyaryk River

Figs 15–18. Schematic plans of dissected flowers of Dracocephalum spp. (15–16) and