Ooencyrtus lucidus Triapitsyn & Ganjisaffar, 2020
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.76.48004 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:24B2A66D-D648-4854-B0B9-4C0489881233 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/98066B3C-9BBB-4BAE-AC92-13A559D58817 |
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:98066B3C-9BBB-4BAE-AC92-13A559D58817 |
treatment provided by |
|
scientific name |
Ooencyrtus lucidus Triapitsyn & Ganjisaffar |
status |
sp. nov. |
Ooencyrtus lucidus Triapitsyn & Ganjisaffar sp. nov.
Figs 2 View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4
Ooencyrtus californicus Girault: Noyes 2010: 402 (misidentification of specimens from Texas).
Type material.
Holotype female, deposited in UCRC, on slide (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ) labeled: 1. "USA: California, Riverside Co. Riverside, T. M. Perring laboratory at UCR, F3 on bagrada bug eggs From colony, ii.2019, F. Ganjisaffar Originally from: UCR Ag. Ops. 33.966002N, 117.343198W Cards with fresh sentinel eggs of Bagrada hilaris (Burmeister) placed in squash field 26-29.x.2018 Parasitoids emerged 13-15.xi.2018, F. Ganjisaffar"; 2. "V. V. Berezovskiy 2019 in Canada balsam"; 3. [red] " Ooencyrtus lucidus Triapitsyn & Ganjisaffar Holotype ♀"; 4. "Det. by S. V. Triapitsyn 2019"; 5. [barcode database label/unique identifier] " UCRC [bold] UCRC ENT 311771". The holotype (Figs 2C View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 ) is in good condition, complete, dissected under 4 coverslips.
Paratypes. USA, California, Riverside County, Riverside, University of California at Riverside (UCR): Agricultural Operations, 33.966002N, 117.343198W, 304 m, cards with fresh sentinel eggs of Bagrada hilaris placed in squash field 26-29.x.2018, parasitoids emerged 13-15.xi.2018, F. Ganjisaffar [4 females on points, 4 females on slides (including 3 molecular vouchers of S. A. Andreason, UCRC ENT 311756, 311757, and 311769) and 1 male on slide (molecular voucher UCRC ENT 311770), UCRC]; T. M. Perring laboratory, from colony, third generation (F3) on bagrada bug eggs, ii.2019, F. Ganjisaffar, originated from the above collection [7 females (1 in BMNH, 1 in EMEC, 3 in UCRC, 1 in USNM, 1 in ZIN), 14 males (2 in BMNH, 2 in EMEC, 6 in UCRC, 2 in USNM, 2 in ZIN) on points and 5 females, 2 males on slides, UCRC].
Other (non-type) material examined.
USA: California, Merced County, Merced, 24.viii.1938, R. Rose, "Ex eggs of Acrosternum hilaris " [1 female, 1 male, USNM] (misidentified as O. californicus Girault by A. B. Gahan). Texas, Presidio County, Presidio, 14.viii.1941, L. W. Noble (from eggs of Chlorochroa sayi Stål) (misidentified as O. californicus by A. B. Gahan) [2 females, 1 male, UCRC; 6 females, 4 males, USNM].
Diagnosis.
There are no comprehensive keys for Ooencyrtus in North America and only 3 described species have been identified from California ( Zuparko 2015, 2018). Therefore, to confirm that O. lucidus was not already collected in North America, the first author visited USNM in February 2019 and compared O. lucidus specimens with all the available types of Ooencyrtus species; no match was found. Morphologically, O. lucidus is most similar to the Nearctic species O. californicus , to which its female specimens key in both Noyes (2010) (to the Neotropical species) and Zuparko (2018) (to species in California). However, females of O. lucidus differ from O. californicus in having the scape at most 7.5 × as long as wide (average of 6.6 × as long as wide, Table 1 View Table 1 ) and the F1 is about 1.5 × as long as wide (Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ). For O. californicus the scape (Fig. 5C View Figure 5 ) is about 8.8 × as long as wide (as measured from the slide-mounted syntypes, with no significant difference between the four scapes measured; however, these measurements could very well be inaccurate because of the way the specimens were crushed, and the antennae were slide-mounted), and the F1 is a little more than 2.0 × as long as wide. In addition, the "base of abdomen encircled by a narrow golden band" described by Girault (1917: 22) for O. californicus is not present in O. lucidus . Unfortunately, the metasoma of both extant types of O. californicus is missing (see below under comments). Instead the base of the gaster has a distinct yellow spot medially. Furthermore, although it is a minor difference, F1 of the female antenna is about 0.5 × the length of the pedicel on average in O. lucidus (Table 1 View Table 1 ) whereas in the type specimens of O. californicus it is about 0.6 × the length of the pedicel. Thus, we are unable to positively attribute our specimens of O. lucidus to O. californicus based on the available, very limited comparable morphological data.
In Noyes (1985), O. lucidus keys to the New World species O. johnsoni (Howard), whose entire gaster is shining black, perhaps with a slight greenish tinge. The entire type series of the latter taxon, 2 females and 1 male syntypes, were examined by the first author at USNM; the females are on points, with some parts of them mounted on a slide, and the male is on a slide. It also does not fit any of the described Old World species keyed in the publications mentioned below in the diagnosis of O. mirus , and is presumed to be native to the USA.
Description.
Female (holotype and paratypes). Body length of dry-mounted, critical point-dried paratypes 825-1025 µm, and of slide-mounted paratypes 1045-1125 µm.
Color. Body (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ) mostly shining black with some metallic reflections, particularly on mesosoma, except base of gaster always with a distinct yellow, dorsal spot medially (on gastral tergites 1-3) and often with either yellow or light brown areas laterally and ventrally (always separated from medial yellow spot by a brown area); antenna brown; legs mostly yellow to light brown except coxae brown to dark brown basally and protibia and tarsi brownish.
Sculpture. Head with faint, inconspicuous sculpturing; mesoscutum reticulate, with sculpture cells mostly wider than long; axilla and anterior 1/3 or so of scutellum with a rather weak cell-like sculpture, remainder of body smooth.
Pubescence. Frontovertex, pronotum, mesoscutum, axilla, and scutellum with short, dark setae except scutellum with a few pairs of long, dark setae in posterior half.
Head (Fig. 3A View Figure 3 ) about 1.2 × as wide as high. Minimum width of frontovertex about 0.3 × head width. Toruli just below level of lower eye margin. Ocelli in an obtuse triangle. Maxillary palpus 4-segmented, labial palpus 3-segmented. Mandible with 2 teeth and a broad truncation.
Antenna (Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ) with radicle about 3.2 × as long as wide, rest of scape slender, slightly wider in the middle, 5.7-7.5 × (5.9 × in the holotype) as long as wide; pedicel about 2.2 × as long as wide, notably longer than any funicular segment (F1 0.45-0.55 × length of pedicel, Table 1 View Table 1 ); funicle segments all longer than wide, F1-F3 usually subequal in length (F2 0.9-1.1 × length of F1, Table 1 View Table 1 ) although often F3 the shortest, F5 the longest funicular segment (Table 1 View Table 1 ), F1-F3 without mps, F4 with 1 mps, F5-F6 each with 2 mps; clava 3-segmented, 2.9-3.6 × (2.9 × in the holotype) as long as wide and about as long as combined length of F4-F6, each claval segment with several mps.
Mesosoma (Fig. 3B, C View Figure 3 ). Mesoscutum about 2.5 × as wide as long; scutellum a little shorter than wide and slightly longer than mesoscutum, placoid sensilla close to each other and about in the middle of scutellum.
Wings (Fig. 3D View Figure 3 ) not abbreviated, fore wing extending beyond apex of gaster. Fore wing 2.2-2.5 × as long as wide (2.3 × in the holotype), disc hyaline; costal cell about 12 × as long as wide; marginal vein punctiform; inconspicuous postmarginal vein much shorter than stigmal vein; linea calva closed posteriorly by 2 rows of short, inconspicuous setae; filum spinosum usually with 3 setae, rarely with 4 or 5 setae; longest marginal seta about 0.09 × maximum wing width. Hind wing 4.7-5.3 × as long as wide (4.9 × in the holotype), disc hyaline.
Legs. Mesotibial spur about as long as mesobasitarsus.
Gaster (Fig. 3C View Figure 3 ) longer than mesosoma. Ovipositor occupying 0.6-0.7 length of gaster, a little exserted beyond its apex, and 1.0-1.2 × (about 1.1 × in the holotype) as long as mesotibia.
Measurements (µm) of the holotype. Mesosoma 394; gaster 480; ovipositor 379; mesotibia 358. Antenna: radicle 48; rest of scape 179; pedicel 70; F1 35; F2 38; F3 30; F4 38; F5 45; F6 42; clava 129. Fore wing 852:369; longest marginal seta 33. Hind wing 603:123; longest marginal seta 48.
Male (paratypes). Body length of dry-mounted, critical point-dried paratypes 595-795 µm, and of slide-mounted paratype 940 µm. Head and mesosoma shining black with metallic reflections (Fig. 4B View Figure 4 ), gaster dark brown; legs mostly yellow or light brown except coxae brown to dark brown and tarsi brownish. Head with toruli slightly above lower eye margin. Antenna (Fig. 4C View Figure 4 ) with scape minus short radicle 3.7-4.0 × as long as wide (Table 2 View Table 2 ); funicle segments all longer than wide and more or less subequal in length (proximal segments a little shorter), F1-F3 apparently without mps, F4-F6 with at least 2 mps each; clava entire, 3.1-3.2 × as long as wide, with several mps; flagellar segments all with numerous long setae. Fore wing (Fig. 4D View Figure 4 ) 2.25-3.1 × as long as wide, with linea calva open posteriorly; hind wing 4.1-4.2 × as long as wide. Genitalia (Fig. 4A View Figure 4 ) length 171-182 µm.
Etymology.
Bagrada hilaris populations have declined in California. We believe that parasitoids like O. lucidus are responsible for this decline. “Lucidus” is an adjective derived from Latin, meaning "lucid, clear." It is chosen for this species name referring to the elucidation of why populations of B. hilaris have declined in California.
Distribution.
Nearctic region: USA (California and Texas).
Hosts.
Pentatomidae : Bagrada hilaris (Burmeister), Chinavia hilaris (Say), and Chlorochroa sayi Stål. In California, O. lucidus apparently switched from its native host(s), such as the green stink bug Chinavia hilaris , to parasitize eggs of the invasive bagrada bug.
Comments.
The following specimens of O. californicus have been examined. Lectotype female [USNM], here designated to avoid the existing ambiguity regarding the status of the type specimens of this species, on slide (Fig. 5A View Figure 5 ) labeled: 1. [red] "Type no. 20859 U.S.N.M."; 2. " Ooencyrtus californicus Girault. ♀ type.". Of the two crushed type female specimens (Fig. 5B View Figure 5 ) on this slide (because 4 scapes are present), only parts of 4 antennae and a slightly damaged fore wing (Fig. 5D View Figure 5 ) remain; the lectotype is constituted by the remains of one of them, circled in India ink, with the most intact antenna (Fig. 5C View Figure 5 ); remains of the other specimen are those of the paralectotype, and the single fore wing (Fig. 5D View Figure 5 ) can belong to either of them. The species was poorly described ( Girault 1917: 22 [as Oenocyrtus californicus , sic]) from the unspecified number of “Types” under this catalog number in USNM; the type series was reared in Sacramento, California, USA from bug eggs on Pinus sabiniana (Douglas) D. Don ( Pinaceae ). The whereabouts of the other specimens of the type series, if they ever existed, are unknown; however, it is quite likely that these two females were the only original “types”. Thus, all other identifications of this species could be regarded to be tentative at best: for instance, specimens belonging to perhaps three different species of Ooencyrtus stand under O. californicus in UCRC. Zuparko (2015: 44) commented on the difficulties of identifying this species and the poor condition of the “holotype” female of O. californicus in USNM, noting that a species similar to it was collected in several counties in California including Riverside County. To be fully recognizable (since the original syntypes are incomplete), O. californicus will need to be re-described and thoroughly illustrated based on fresh specimens collected in the Sacramento area of California on the original host plant. DNA sequences will need to be compared with those of O. lucidus and other species of Ooencyrtus . Until that happens (keeping in mind that the true O. californicus may never be re-collected and thus would be impossible to be properly recognized), this species is treated as a nomen dubium, and making positive identifications of any specimens as O. californicus is not currently feasible. Therefore, we chose to describe O. lucidus , for which many good quality specimens and DNA sequences are available, as a new species that can be easily and positively recognized using a combination of morphological features and genetic data. The other option, i.e. trying to match our specimens with the incomplete original syntypes of O. californicus for which desired DNA sequences are not available, is impossible given the latter nominal species cannot be positively identified.
Noyes (2010) reported 2 females of O. californicus (determined as such by A. B. Gahan) from Presidio, Texas, USA, reared from eggs of Chlorochroa sayi , but closer examination of the specimens from the same series revealed that they are conspecific with O. lucidus .
Also present in UCRC is a series of 9 females misidentified (probably by H. Compere) as O. californicus , reared 1.ix.1937 in Riverside, Riverside County, California, USA by J. D. Maple from eggs of Anasa tristis (De Geer) ( Hemiptera : Coreidae ) and reported as O. californicus by Maple (1947: 105); these are neither O. californicus nor O. lucidus because their entire gaster is dark, without any yellow spot or band, and in this regard are more similar to O. johnsoni .
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 |
Ooencyrtus lucidus Triapitsyn & Ganjisaffar
Triapitsyn, Serguei V., Andreason, Sharon A., Power, Nancy, Ganjisaffar, Fatemeh, Fusu, Lucian, Dominguez, Chrysalyn & Perring, Thomas M. 2020 |
Ooencyrtus californicus
Triapitsyn & Andreason & Power & Ganjisaffar & Fusu & Dominguez & Perring 2020 |