Aleiodes quadrum (Tobias, 1976)
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.919.39642 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0CC5169A-2325-41AD-938F-179FCB056381 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/33A49D24-B0A2-5511-B3FE-383C9E346F4C |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Aleiodes quadrum (Tobias, 1976) |
status |
|
Aleiodes quadrum (Tobias, 1976) View in CoL Figs 627-628 View Figures 627, 628 , 629-641 View Figures 629–641 , 642 View Figure 642 , 643-651 View Figures 643–651
Rogas (Rogas) quadrum Tobias, 1976: 83, 221, 1986: 76 (transl.: 125).
Aleiodes (Neorhogas) quadrum ; Papp 1985a: 162, 1991a: 83.
Aleiodes quadrum ; Papp 2005: 177.
Rogas (Rogas) illustris Papp, 1977a: 112, 1985a: 162 (as synonym of A. quadrum ), 1991a: 83 (id.), 2005: 176 (id.) [examined].
Type material.
Holotype of A. illustris , ♀ (MTMA), "Yugoslavia, [Croatia:] Kostrena, Rijeka, 12.viii.1966, Uremović”, "Holotypus ♀ Rogas illustris sp. n., Papp, J., 1977", "Hym. Typ. No. 2378, Mus. Budapest"; paratype, ♀ (MTMA), "[Hungary], Hársbokorhegy, Nagykovacsi", "1.viii.1952, Bajári”, "Paratypus ♀ Rogas illustris sp. n., Papp, J., 1977", "Hym. Typ. No. 2380, Mus. Budapest".
Additional material.
1 ♀ (NMS), " France: Ardèche, Accons, UV light, 24.vi.2013, M.R. Shaw", "MRS Aleiodes DNA 796"; 1 ♀ (NMS), "France: Savoie, Queige, Le Villaret, 700m., 19.vi. 2019, C.W. Plant"; 1 ♀ (BZL), " Turkey, 15 km W Refahye, W of Erzincan, 1600 m, 7.vii.2000, M. Halada"; 1 ♀ (BZL), " GRC [= Greece], Westmakadonien, Florina, Aussichtsplatz SE Karies, 40°45'2"N, 21°10'39"E, 1080 m msl, 27.vi.2016, 2016/31, LF, H. u. R. Rausch"; 1 ♀ (MTMA), "[North] Macedonia, Skopje Prov., Mt. Vodno, 16.vii.1997, Gy. Rozner"; 1 ♀ (NMS), "N. Macedonia, Vardar river valley, above Demir Kapiya, N41°22'58", E22°11'45", 244m, 13.vii.2019 S. Beshkov & A. Nahirnic"; 1 ♂ (NMS), " Bulgaria: Haskovo, E. Rhodopes, SW Mezek, 450 m, MV light, 17.vii.2015, C.W. Plant".
Molecular data.
MRS796 (France), additionally MRS824 (Bulgaria) likely to be a male of this species.
Biology.
Unknown. Collected in June-July, likely to be univoltine, but there is nothing to suggest how the winter is passed. We have not seen reared material, but the elongate and strongly apically compressed metasoma suggests that the host would be concealed, perhaps between spun leaves, in a leaf sheath, in a seed capsule or in some similar situation.
Diagnosis.
Maximum width of hypoclypeal depression approx. 0.6 × minimum width of face (Fig. 636 View Figures 629–641 ); OOL of ♀ 0.6-0.7 × diameter of posterior ocellus and rugose; ventral margin of clypeus obtuse apically and clypeus hardly protruding anteriorly (Fig. 638 View Figures 629–641 ); lobes of mesoscutum densely finely punctate, with interspaces approx. equal to diameter of punctures, smooth and shiny; precoxal area distinctly rugose, but posteriorly only punctate; vein cu-a of fore wing vertical; surroundings of veins M+CU1 and 1-+2-CU1 largely glabrous; vein 1-CU1 of fore wing approx. 0.8 × vein 2-CU1 and as long as m-cu (Fig. 629 View Figures 629–641 ); surroundings of veins M+CU and 1-M of hind wing largely glabrous; hind tarsal claws with conspicuous dark brown pecten close to apical tooth (Fig. 635 View Figures 629–641 ); 1st tergite parallel-sided and longer than wide apically (Fig. 632 View Figures 629–641 ); 2nd tergite of ♀1.0-1.2 × as long as wide basally and black; head black; vein 1-M of fore wing dark brown; wing membrane slightly infuscate.
Redescription.
♀ (NMS) from France (Accons). Length of fore wing 6.9 mm, of body 9.6 mm.
Head. Antennal segments of ♀ 53, antenna as long as fore wing, its subapical segments rather robust (Fig. 640 View Figures 629–641 ); frons with curved striae but medially largely smooth; OOL 0.7 × diameter of posterior ocellus, finely rugose and shiny; vertex coarsely punctate but behind ocelli rugose, rather shiny; clypeus nearly flat and coarsely rugose-punctate; ventral margin of clypeus thick and hardly protruding anteriorly (Fig. 638 View Figures 629–641 ); width of hypoclypeal depression 0.6 × minimum width of face (Fig. 636 View Figures 629–641 ); length of eye 1.6 × temple in dorsal view (Fig. 637 View Figures 629–641 ); clypeus near lower level of eyes; length of malar space 0.2 × length of eye in lateral view.
Mesosoma. Mesoscutal lobes densely and finely punctate, with interspaces approx. equal to diameter of punctures, smooth and shiny; scutellum finely and densely punctate; precoxal sulcus area of mesopleuron distinctly rugose but posteriorly only punctate, remainder of mesopleuron distinctly but remotely punctate; metapleuron remotely punctate, but ventrally rugose; propodeum evenly convex and coarsely vermiculate-rugose and medio-longitudinal carina nearly complete.
Wings. Fore wing: r 0.4 × 3-SR (Fig. 629 View Figures 629–641 ); 1-CU1 horizontal, 0.8 × 2-CU1; r-m 0.6 × 3-SR; 2nd submarginal cell medium-sized (Fig. 629 View Figures 629–641 ); cu-a nearly vertical and straight; 1-M curved posteriorly; 1-SR rather slender; surroundings of M+CU1, 1-M and 1-CU1 largely glabrous. Hind wing: marginal cell linearly widened, its apical width 2.2 × width at level of hamuli (Fig. 629 View Figures 629–641 ); 2-SC+R short longitudinal; m-cu narrowly present; M+CU:1-M = 50:33; 1r-m 0.8 × 1-M.
Legs. Tarsal claws with conspicuous and robust blackish pecten, close to level of apical tooth (Fig. 635 View Figures 629–641 ); hind coxa largely densely punctate; hind trochantellus rather robust; length of hind femur and basitarsus 4.3 and 5.6 × their width, respectively; length of inner hind spur 0.4 × hind basitarsus.
Metasoma. First tergite evenly convex, 1.3 × longer than wide apically; 1st and 2nd tergites with medio-longitudinal carina and finely longitudinally rugose, but posterior quarter of 2nd tergite smooth and no median carina; medio-basal area of 2nd tergite triangular and wide (Fig. 632 View Figures 629–641 ); 2nd tergite as long as wide basally and with shallow transverse impression; 2nd suture shallow and narrowly crenulate; 3rd and subsequent tergites finely punctulate and strongly shiny; apical half of 3rd and 4th tergites without sharp lateral crease; ovipositor sheath widened apically, with medium-sized setae and apically truncate (Fig. 628 View Figures 627, 628 ).
Colour. Black; hind tibia dark brown apically and remainder pale yellowish; middle and hind tarsi, and fore telotarsus blackish or dark brown; mandible, remainder of legs, mesoscutum, pronotum postero-dorsally, mesopleuron dorsally, scutellum, metanotum, ovipositor sheath and 1st tergite (except pair of dark patches apically) orange; tegulae yellowish; palpi and pterostigma blackish; vein dark brown, but vein at base of wings yellowish; wing membrane largely slightly infuscate.
Variation. OOL of ♀ 0.6-0.7 × diameter of posterior ocellus. The female from Turkey is very similar but has 1st tergite 1.4 × as long as wide apically and 2nd tergite 1.2 × longer than wide basally. Antennal segments: ♀ 53(1), 56(1), 57(1), 58(1). Apical tergites of male type 2 with fringe rather strong (Figs 645 View Figures 643–651 , 646 View Figures 643–651 ). The figured male from Bulgaria has OOL rugose anteriorly, 1st tergite 1.2 × as long as wide posteriorly, 2nd tergite completely parallel-sided and 0.9 × as long as wide, 3rd tergite rugose-striate in anterior half and parallel-sided 0.7 × as long as wide, fore femur 4.5 × longer than wide and hind femur 4.1 × longer than wide.
Distribution.
Azerbaijan, *Bulgaria, Croatia, *France, *Greece, Hungary, *North Macedonia, *Turkey.
Notes.
The holotype of A. quadrum is a male and it is less reliable to identify this species from it than from the holotype female of A. illustris ; nevertheless, we accept the synonymy proposed by Papp (1985a). The figured male from Bulgaria (NMS; Figs 642 View Figure 642 - 651 View Figures 643–651 ) is considered to be this species (initially through its CO1 sequence); it is morphologically very similar to A. cruentus and there is a possibility that some similar males have been returned to depositories determined as A. cruentus with no recognition that they might belong to A. quadrum . However, the matter remains unresolved until more males of A. quadrum become available.
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 |