Choeras dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808 )

Moghaddam, Mostafa Ghafouri, Rakhshani, Ehsan, Achterberg, Cornelis Van & Mokhtari, Azizollah, 2018, A study of the Iranian species of Choeras Mason (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae), with the description of a new species, Zootaxa 4446 (4), pp. 455-476 : 458-461

Choeras dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808)

[ Figs 2–3 ]

Microgaster dorsalis Spinola, 1808: 151 .

Microgaster cruciatus Ratzeburg, 1844: 67 .

Microgaster “cruentatus Ratzeburg”; Rondani 1872: 49. Misspelling.

Microplitis dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; Marshall 1872: 106.

Apanteles lictorius Reinhard, 1880: 364 .

Microgaster ocellatae Bouché, 1834: 161 .

Microgaster suffolciensis Morley, 1902: 4 .

Microgaster (Lissogaster) dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; Fahringer 1937: 326.

Hypomicrogaster dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; Papp 1981: 138.

Choeras dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; Papp 1983: 257.

Apanteles (Choeras) dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; van Achterberg 2002: 56; Yu et al. 2016.

Apanteles suffolciensis ( Morley, 1902) ; van Achterberg 2002: 56.

Apanteles dorsalis ( Spinola, 1808) ; Belokobylskij et al. 2003: 386.

Specimens examined. 2 ♀ ( DPPZ): IRAN, Kermanshah, Sarpole Zahab (34°27’N, 45°51′E, 560 m), 14.v.2015, Malaise trap on farmland, leg.: M. Zardouei Heidari ; 8 ♀ and 2 ♂ (HNHM): 1 ♀, BULGARIA, Rhodope Mt. Nikolov (41°36'N, 24°34'E), 20.vi.1976, leg.: Zaykov, Det. J. Papp, 1989 ; 1 ♀, EGYPT, Memphis (29°50′N, 31°15′E), Aegyptus Schmiedeknecht, 97 [printed, black ink] ; 1 ♀, GREECE, Laconia, 7 km south of Monemvasia (36°41'N, 23°3'E), 16.vi.1980, leg.: G. Christensen ; 1 ♂, same data label, 16.x.1979, Det. J. Papp, 1989 ; 1 ♀, Crete Biro (35°14’N, 24°48’E), Ins. Dia. 25–29.v.?, Det. J. Papp, 1989: Microgaster dorsalis [handwritten, black ink] ; 1 ♀, ITALY, Verona, Castelvecchio (45°26'N, 10°59'E), leg.: Horv. 1914, Det. J. Papp, 1975 as Hypomicrogaster dorsalis ; 1 ♀, JORDAN (30°35’N, 36°14’E), legs: J. Klapperich, Fuhus N. Amm. 1000 m, 5.v.1956, Det. J. Papp, 1989 ; 1 ♀, MALTA, Fawwara (35°54’N, 14°30’E), 28–29.iii.2006, reared from Avaria hyerana (Lep., Torticidae) ; 1 ♀, TURKEY, Adana (36°59'N, 35°19'E), 4.x.1979. leg.: A. Beyarslan ; 1 ♀ and 1 ♂, Alanya (36°32'N, 31°59'E), 3.viii.1980. leg.: A. Beyarslan, Det. J. Papp, 1984.

Short diagnosis. Female ( Iran), length of body 2.8–3.0 mm, length of antenna 2.6–2.9 mm, length of fore wing 2.9–3.1 mm.

Colour. Body colour paler than in typical specimens. Mesoscutum ( Fig. 3A ) and propleuron ( Fig. 2G ) orange. Mediotergites 4–8 darker than laterotergites and mostly brown medially ( Fig. 3A ). Metatibia whitish yellow anteriorly and about 0.2 of posterior face dark brown.

Head. Subapical antennal flagellomeres somewhat moniliform but longer than wide, first flagellomere 0.5 × as long as second flagellomere, penultimate and apical flagellomeres (15th and 16th) 1.2 and 1.7 × as long as wide, respectively ( Fig. 2B ).

Mesosoma . Mesosoma 1.2 × as long as wide ( Figs 2G , 3A ). Scutoscutellar sulcus with 12 or 13 carinae and/or pits ( Figs 3A–3B ). Propodeum shiny and largely smooth with an irregular medio-longitudinal carina, only traces of transverse carina present as rugose sculpture and postero-laterally rugose ( Fig. 3B ).

Legs. Tarsal claws slender. Metacoxa not surpassing posterior margin of T3 ( Figs 2A, 2G , 3E ). Metafemur 0.8 × as long as metatibia ( Figs 2A , 3E ).

Wings. Fore wing: vein R1 about 1.2 × longer than pterostigma, vein r of fore wing 1.1 × as long as vein 2 RS and slightly curved, vein r-m 1.4 × as long as 3RSa, vein r about 0.6 × width of pterostigma, subbasal cell about half as long as vein 1M and more setose than around of vein 1M. Hind wing: vein cu-a slightly curved ( Fig. 3F ).

Metasoma. T1 relatively long, anterior half of T1 parallel-sided, then narrowing towards posterior margin, anterior half rather depressed medially, concave, smooth and shiny, and posterior half with strong rugae except median prominence. T2 transversely narrowed, subtriangular, laterally long and weakly sloping, apically completely straight and short, T2 with strong rugae laterally, smooth and shiny medially ( Figs 3C–3D ). T3 smooth with sandglass-shaped. T4–T8 smooth with brown medial spot ( Fig. 3D ). Hypopygium flexible and folded by medio-longitudinal creases ( Fig. 3E ). Ovipositor sheath slender basally and broadening conspicuously toward apex, smooth with many long whitish setae, especially apically, setose part of sheath 0.7 × as long as metatibia ( Fig. 3E ).

Hosts. Unknown in Iran.

Biology. Unknown in Iran; only collected in May.

Distribution in Iran: Ardabil province ( Ghahari et al. 2011a).

General distribution (Fig. 11A): Palaearctic: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canary Islands, Cyprus, Egypt (new record), France, Georgia, Germany, Greece (Crete), Hungary, Iran, Italy (Sardinia, Sicily), Jordan (new record), Lithuania, Madeira Islands, Malta (new record), Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia (Dagestanskaya Respublika), Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan.

Similar species. The most similar species is C. parasitellae ( Bouché, 1834) , of which females have shorter antenna and penultimate flagellomeres not noticeably longer than wide, the propodeum without medio-longitudinal carina, T1 less narrowed apically and T2 more transverse and almost reaches lateral margin of segment.

Male. Unknown in Iran.

Notes. The Iranian specimens are considered to belong to C. dorsalis as interpreted in literature because vein r of fore wing is 1.1 × longer than vein 2 RS, subapical antennal flagellomeres somewhat moniliform and longer than wide, metafemur more or less dark brown apically and propodeum shiny and largely smooth with an irregular medio-longitudinal carina and with sparse whitish setae. Comparing with specimens deposited in HNHM (identified by Szépligeti and Papp), there is a slight colour differences on scape, pedicel, mesoscutum, meso- and metapleuron and tergites. Generally, there are two specimen groups with either light and dark colour. Iranian specimens differ only in colour which is probably due to climatological differences between Iran and Europe and it is probably intraspecific variation. The Iranian specimens reported by Ghahari et al. (2011a), could not be studied, because the depository was not mentioned.

Figures

FIGURE 2. Choeras dorsalis (Spinola), female. A. Habitus, lateral view; B. Antennae, lateral view; C. Metafemur and tibia, lateral view; D. Head, frontal view; E. Head, dorsal view; F. Head, lateral view; G. Mesosoma, lateral view.

FIGURE 3. Choeras dorsalis (Spinola), female. A. Mesonotum, dorsal view; B. Metanotum and propodeum, dorsal view; C. T1 and T2, dorsal view; D. Mesosoma, dorsal view; E. Metasoma, lateral view; F. Fore and hind wing.