Campiglossa misella (Loew)

Han, Ho-Yeon & Ro, Kyung-Eui, 2019, DNA barcoding reveals a species group of the genus Campiglossa (Diptera, Tephritidae, Tephritinae) with recognition of a new species from East Asia and previously unknown females of Campiglossa coei (Hardy), ZooKeys 899, pp. 1-36 : 1

Campiglossa misella (Loew) Figs 4 G–K , 6 A–G

Oxyna misella Loew, 1869: 19 (Type-locality: RUSSIA, Sarepta [Volgograd Region]. Syntype ♂♀, ZMHU. Inference of holotype by White 1986: 152, invalid; l.c. Norrbom et al. 1999: 112).

Tephritis lusoria Nowicky, 1869: 145 (Type-locality: UKRAINE, "Podolu, Sinkowie"; and Skale [Skala Podilska]. Syntype ♂, ZMHU, inference of holotype by White 1986: 152 (invalid; depository of other syntypes unknown); l.c. Norrbom et al. 1999: 112).

Paroxyna kunlunica Wang, 1996: 185 (Type-locality: CHINA, Yecheng, Xinjiang. Holotype ♂, IZAS); Wang 1998: 267 (new synonym of C. misella ).

Campiglossa roscida Ito, 2011: 28 (Type-locality: NEPAL, Taplejung Dist., Walungchung Gola, 3,350 m. Holotype ♀, UOPJ - examined, Fig. 10C, D ), syn. nov.

Campiglossa misella : Korneyev 1990: 443 (new combination, redescription); Norrbom et al. 1999: 112 (in the world Tephritidae catalog); Korneyev and Kameneva 1993: 44 (host plants); Wang 1998: 255, 267 (in the East Asian Campiglossa key, diagnosis); Korneyev 2004: 8 (taxonomic notes and erroneous synonymy of Tephritis coei and T. pishanica - see Remarks); Korneyev and Ovchinnikova 2004 (in the Russian Far East Tephritidae key); Smit et al. 2013: 297 (DNA barcoding analysis).

Paroxyna misella : Hendel 1927: 155, X-2 (description, wing photograph of a syntype male); White, 1988: 5, 50 (biology, diagnosis, in the British Paroxyna key).

Material examined.

HUNGARY: Bdaors, Odvas hg., 18.VI.1991, B. Merz and Adams, 1♀ (YSUW). ITALY: Aosta, St. Pierre, M. Torrette, 800-850 m, 22.IV.2003, B. Merz and F. Amiet, 1♂ (YSUW). NEPAL: Taplejung: Walungchung Gola, 3,350 m, 14.VI.1962, T. Yasuda, holotype ♂ of C. roscida (UOPJ; Fig. 10C, D ). SWITZERLAND: Valais 642 m, St. German/ Brüke, 3.VIII.1998, B. Merz and G. Bächli, 1♀; Valais, Leuk-Rotafen, 46°18'59"N, 7°40'18"E, 640 m, 22.VII.2004, H.Y. Han and K.E. Ro, 1♂ 1♀ (YSUW); Valais, Visperterminen-Kreuz, 46°15'17"N, 7°53'52"E, 1500 m, 21.VII.2004, H.Y. Han and K.E. Ro, 2♀ (YSUW). KYRGYZSTAN: S-Issik-Kul nr. Barskaun vill., 31.VII.1995, S.V. Ovchinnikov, 1♀ (YSUW); Telash Mt. r./ N slope, Ara-Bijik rav, 2300 m, 4.VII.1998, D. Milko, 1♂ (YSUW).

Diagnosis.

Males of C. misella usually have distinct sexually dimorphic wing patterns [e.g., Fig. 4G from Kyrgyzstan is almost identical to the male syntype photograph by Hendel (1927)] but some European populations seem to show slight sexual dimorphism (e.g., Fig. 4H from Switzerland). More extensive survey is required to understand their variation, but they could still be readily diagnosed even based on our limited samples. Head largely yellowish brown with grey upper occiput. Thorax with scutum entirely ash-grey with five brownish longitudinal stripes ( Fig. 4I, K ); bases of acrostichal, dorsocentral, intra-alar, basal scutellar setae dark brown; scutellum ash-grey with lateral margins brown, apex yellowish brown; Legs with femora largely dark grey except for yellowish brown apices ( Fig. 4G, H, J ), but tibiae and tarsi yellowish brown; fore femur with six or seven dark brown posteroventral setae. Wing with basal half largely with dark spots, especially cell br posteroapical to fork of vein Rs with dark brown rectangular area (approx. twice as wide as long; Fig. 4G-a, J-a ); male often with large dark mid-anterior marking covering from mid-anterior 1/3 to posterior end of crossvein R-M ( Fig. 4G ); pterostigma almost completely dark brown in such sexually dimorphic male (Fig. G), but with large hyaline spot in minimally dimorphic male ( Fig. 4H ), and female ( Fig. 4J ); cell r1 apical to pterostigma with three large hyaline spots with 1st and 3rd spots much smaller than middle one in dimorphic male ( Fig. 4G-b ), but with three large similarly sized hyaline spots in female ( Fig. 4J ) or minimally dimorphic male ( Fig. 4H ); cell r2+3 without posteroapical hyaline spot. Abdomen ash-grey with tergites 3-5 in male and 3-6 in female each with pair of brown submedian spots; oviscape shiny dark brown, as long as four preceding segments.

Distribution.

Europe, Central Asia, China (Xinjian, Shanxi, Sichuan, Xizang, Yunnan), Nepal.

Biology.

This is the only species of the misella group with host feeding biology known. Interestingly, White (1988) reported that this species usually attacks the flowering spike of Artemisia vulgaris , inducing a stem gall in the first generation and developing in the capitula in the second generation in the UK. In addition to Ar. vulgaris , Korneyev and Kameneva (1993) listed Ar. santolinifoliae and Ar. dracunculus as their host plants in Central Asia (Kazakhstan).

Remarks.

We resurrected C. coei and C. pishanica from the synonymy of C. misella by Korneyev (2014). Our study indicates that C. coei is a valid species ( Figs 1 , 2 ). Campiglossa pishanica is somewhat similar to C. misella in having the dark femora and the large mid-anterior wing marking, but C. pishanica has the following characteristics that, we posit, are beyond the variation range of the C. misella wing pattern ( Figs 4G vs. 10E): cell r1 apical to pterostigma with two hyaline spots instead of 3, basal 3/4 of cell dm almost hyaline, and anal lobe hyaline. See also the Remarks of C. pishanica for further discussion.

Figures

Figure 1. The genus Campiglossa portion of the neighbor-joining tree based on the Kimura 2 - parameter distances of 7,223 tephritid DNA barcode sequences mostly extracted from BOLD Systems (www. boldsystems. org, as of Jan 2019), including 55 newly obtained Campiglossa sequences (names prefixed with Z). All 211 Campiglossa, Homoeotricha, and Dioxyna (regarded to be the genus Campiglossa, sensu lato, in this study) sequences were recovered as a monophyletic clade in this analysis. Putative species group names (in red) are marked on the respective branches.

Figure 2. MEGA X analysis produced a maximum-likelihood (ML) phylogram of the 76 selected Campiglossa (ingroup) and ten Tephritis (outgroup) DNA barcode sequences using the general time reversible model. The first number on each branch is the bootstrap support from ML analysis (pb); the second number represents posterior probability (pp) from Bayesian inference (BI). Samples in green letters were extracted from BOLD systems (www. boldsystems. org).

Figure 4. A-F Campiglossa coei A male, lateral view B male, dorsal view C male wing D female, lateral view E female, dorsal view F female wing G-K C. misella G male, lateral view H male, lateral view I male, dorsal view J female, lateral view K female, dorsal view.

Figure 6. Genitalia of Campiglossa misella A epandrial complex, lateral view B epandrial complex, caudal view C glans and preglans of distiphallus D female postabdomen with aculeus and eversible membrane pulled out, ventral view E magnified view of aculeus tip F magnified view of oviscape and eversible membrane G Spermatheca.

Figure 10. A Holotype male of Campiglossa favillacea Ito, 2011 (new synonym of C. coei, UOPJ) B from left, two paratype females and holotype of C. favillacea [UOPJ] C holotype female of C. roscida Ito, 2011 (new synonym of C. misella) D ditto E holotype or paratype male wing of C. pishanica F holotype male wing of C. propria E, F reproduced from Wang (1998) with permission from Xing-Jian Wang.