Chiloe micropteron Gibson and Huber, 2000

Gibson, Gary A. P. & Huber, John T., 2000, Review of the family Rotoitidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), with description of a new genus and species from Chile, Journal of Natural History 34 (12), pp. 2293-2314 : 2295-2300

Chiloe micropteron Gibson and Huber , sp. nov.

(®gures 1±32, 45)

Type material. HOLOTYPE m ( CNCI) on card point, labelled:` CHILE: Chiloe Is. , 50 m Terao nr Chonchi; Feb. 21, 23, 1988; P. T. [pan trap], 2nd growth forest; L. Masner, Chile Exp .’;` Holotype Chiloe micropteron m Gibson and Huber CNC No. 22425 ’. ALLOTYPE l( CNCI) on card point, with same data as holotype but collection date 18± 21 February 1988 . PARATYPES: 24 females on points and 11 females on slides, with same data as holotype but some with collection dates 21± 24 February 1988 ; 1 female,` CHILE: Osorno Puyehue N.P. [National Park], Antillanca, 1200 m, 16.II.1988 , Nothofagus tree line, L. Masner, Chile Exp .’; 1 female,`Osorno, 250 m, Puyehue Nat. Park , ca Anticura; 12± 14.II.1988 , Nothofagus for., P. T., L. Masner, Chile Exp .’.

2014 February 14 38: 02 at] Bath of University [by Downloaded

Specimens are deposited in the CNCI, The Natural History Museum, London, and the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC.

Etymology. The species name refers to the short fore wings.

Female. Body length 940 m m (holotype), mean 5 829 (691±973, ssd 5 84, n 5 21). Body brown to yellowish with dark setal sockets; face below toruli, lateral surface of mesosoma, and legs at least apically often slightly to distinctly lighter than mesosomal dorsum and metasoma; antenna with scape usually brownish and pedicel and ¯agellum yellowish white to white; mouthparts except mandibles, and intersegmental membrane white.

Head except occiput and postgenae uniformly, densely setose with short, straight, bristle-like setae originating from dark setal sockets (®gures 1±3, 7); in frontal view broadly circular, about 1.2 times wider than high and 1.6±1.9 times wider than long (®gure 1); in lateral view ¯attened hemispherical, with frons evenly and indistinguishably merging into vertex (®gure 2); in dorsal view crescent-like with occiput concave (®gure 7) and separated dorsally and laterally from gena by abrupt angle. Eye small, with about 32 ommatidia, and as setose as head capsule (®gures 1, 2); in lateral view eye length about 0.88 malar space, 0.38 head width, and 1.4 eye width. Gena with distinct malar sulcus (®gures 2, 45). Ocelli absent. Torulus slightly below middle of head, with ventral margin slightly below ventral margin of eye (®gures 1, 2, 45); distance between toruli equal to distance between a torulus and eye. Clypeus semicircular, ¯at and sloping toward oral margin, but with apically reēxed rim (®gure 5). Labrum ¯ap-like with row of setae subapically (®gures 4, 5). Mandibles well developed, crossing medially, each with a dorsobasal lobe articulating with oral margin (®gure 4) and with two teeth, the ventral tooth small and pointed apically, the dorsal tooth very broad and apically serrate (®gures 4, 5). Maxillary palpus twosegmented (®gure 6); labial palpus one-segmented with three long apical setae (®gure 6).

Antenna not distinctly geniculate, with straight to slightly curved, moderately clavate ¯agellum (®gures 13, 45); antennal measurements given in table 1. Scape with short but distinct radicle about 0.15 times scape length, and distinctly broadened toward apex, as setose as head capsule (®gure 14). Pedicel as setose as scape (®gure 14). Flagellum with slightly shorter and denser setae ventrally on apical one or two funicular segments and clava (®gure 15); funicle and clava each six-segmented; clava with distinct sutures between segments, the sutures with contiguous, elliptical pustules (®gure 16).

Mesosoma box-like, with anterior, posterior and lateral faces almost vertical (®gure 9), about 1.2 times as long as wide and 1.2 times as long as high. Pronotum in dorsal view not visible medially (®gure 7); in lateral view glabrous except for two or three inconspicuous setae anterodorsally, and with its posterolateral margin almost straight and connected by membrane to anterior margin of mesepisternum (®gure 9); mesothoracic spiracle at dorsal margin of pronotum distinctly anterior to tegula (®gures 8, 9, 45). Prepectus an independent slender sclerite in membrane between pronotum and mesepisternum, as long as pronotal height (®gure 45); concealed when pronotum extended to mesepisternum but not fused with anterior margin of mesepisternum or to corresponding prepectus ventrally. Prosternum vertical, diamond shaped. Mesoscutum short, about 1.5 times broader than long, slightly less densely setose than head (®gure 7); notauli widely separate and inconspicuous (®gures 8, 10), extending almost to posterior margin of mesoscutum under some angles of light; transscutal articulation shallowly arcuate (®gure 7); scutellar±axillar 2014

February

14

38

:

02

at

]

Bath

of

University [

by

Downloaded complex subequal in length to mesoscutum, with distinct transverse furrow along anterior margin ending laterally in pit at inner angle of each axilla (®gures 7, 8, 10); axillae widely separated, with dorsal surface of axilla obliquely subquadrate, and with two setae anterolaterally (®gures 7, 11); scutellum in dorsal view transverseoval to trapezoidal, with ®ve to nine setae on each side and bare centrally or at least medially (®gures 7, 11), in posterior view with transverse marginal depression (®gure 11), and in lateral view apex abruptly recurved and overhanging metanotum (®gure 9). Metanotum vertical, visible laterally below axilla but concealed between

2014 February 14 38: 02 at] Bath of University [by Downloaded scutellum and propodeum (®gures 8±11). Mesopleuron subrectangular and almost vertical, about twice as high as long and about as long as lateral panel of pronotum, with slightly depressed femoral groove but without distinctly diOEerentiated episternum and epimeron (®gure 9). Metapleuron distinguished from propodeum by oblique suture extending from near posterior margin of metacoxa toward dorsal notch on posterior margin of mesopleuron (®gure 45); metathoraci c spiracle in notch along posterior margin of mesopleuron (®gure 9). Propodeum almost vertical (®gures 9, 45), slightly convex, its surface extensively covered with minute, ¯at, triangular, denticulate microsculpture (®gure 20b), except smooth sublaterally and lateral to spiracle (®gures 11, 20a), and with row of three or four setae below spiracle (®gure 20a); spiracle small and circular (®gure 20a).

Fore wing (®gures 19, 20a, 45) greatly reduced, slightly curved, without apparent venation; about basal third (humeral plate) dark brown, and slightly narrowed apically or diOEerentiated by slight constriction (®gure 19) from paler elongatelanceolate, dorsally densely setose, apical two-thirds (®gures 19, 20a). Hind wing absent.

Legs with tarsi four-segmented. Protibia with patch of spatulate setae anteroapically, the setal patch narrowed toward base of tibia, and with two longer, apical, spatulate setae (protibial comb) adjacent to spur (®gure 18); tibial spur bifurcate, slightly sinuate but with outer tine almost straight, and inner tine obliquely angled relative to outer tine and projecting from near midlength of spur (®gures 17, 18); basitarsus with comb of about eight long, curved, spatulate setae on anterior surface, the basal four or ®ve setae oriented transversely across base of basitarsus (®gure 18). Mesotibia without distinct apical spur. Metatibia with one apical spur.

Metasoma with petiole ring-like, very short and concealed between propodeum and gaster (®gure 8). Gaster with seven visible terga (®gures 24, 25, 45); tergum 1 almost entirely vertical, uniformly setose dorsally; terga 2±6 transverse-rectangular, subequally long and loosely connected by membrane, bare along anterior margin but uniformly setose over at least posterior half; tergum 6 without spiracle but with large, transverse-oval, sublateral setal patch (®gure 26); tergum 7 with large sublateral cercal plate in depressed region near anterior margin; cercal plate with three setae of diOEerent lengths, one very long (®gures 25, 26, 45). Hypopygium short, extending only to base of ovipositor (®gure 25). Ovipositor sheaths projecting very slightly (®gure 25).

Internal features: Axillar phragma about as long as width of axilla, narrow, extending from anterior margin of axilla laterally and obliquely angled in same direction as dorsal surface of axilla (®gure 21). Mesotergal±mesotrochantera l muscle originating entirely or almost entirely from axillar phragma, band-like, about as long as height of mesoscutum and converging ventrally to tendon-like apodeme extending height of mesopleuron (®gures 21, 22). Mesophragma truncate apically, extending to posterior apex of propodeum (cf. Rotoita , ®gure 47). Mesotrochantina l plate extending dorsally to anterior margin of metasternum, the mesocoxal fossae separated by cuticle (®gure 12). Mesofurca without mesofurcal bridge or interfurcal processes (®gure 23). Metasternum with metafurcal pits widely separated, each pit at anterior margin of metasternum posterior to mesocoxal fossa (®gure 12); metafurcae consisting of separate apodemes (cf. Rotoita , ®gure 47).

Ovipositor with second (upper) valvulae undivided and uniformly convex basally but distally with median suture from about mid-length diOEerentiating left and right upper valvulae, the left valvula slightly overlapping right valvula (®gures 28, 29, 32);

®rst (lower) valvulae in ventral view enclosed by membranous sheath (®gures 30, 32), the left and right lower valvulae clearly visible only near apex (®gure 27); in cross-section the lower valvulae composed of subtriangular left and right median lobes (®gure 32) and widely overlapping thin lateral walls (®gures 28±32), the left and right lateral walls together forming a bilayered sheath around the median lobes (®gures 30, 32) except apically (®gure 27).

Male. Body length (allotype) 713 m m. Similar to female except antenna 13-segmented, with indistinctly diOEerentiated ®ve-segmented clava; all ¯agellar segments clearly separated, the six funicular segments submoniliform and the claval segments slightly trapezoidal. Eye smaller, with about 25 ommatidia and about 0.7 length of malar space. Colour generally slightly lighter than in most females. Extruded genitalia about 119 m m long.

Remarks. The total body length given for females is skewed slightly because critical-point dried specimens have the gaster ināted, with the terga well separated

2014 by stretched intersegmental membrane. The actual body size of live females is probably closer to 700 m m. Gibson (1993, ®gure 227) previously illustrated the female

February as the a Biology mesofurca representative. Unknown under of the the, but name family likely Rotoita and a parasitoid Heraty sp. et al of. (some 1997) soil-dwelling described the host structure because of

14 both sexes are micropterous and their collection in pan traps indicates a soil or leaf-

38

:

litter habitat. The type locality was a ravine with semi-open vegetation consisting

02 of second growth native shrubs. It is a fenced area now owned by A. Ugarte, the

at nephew of the late L. PenÄa, Chile’s foremost ®eld naturalist.

]

Bath

of Rotoita BoucÏek and Noyes

University Rotoita 1989 basalis : 37. BoucÏek and Noyes,

(® 1987 gures: 408 33 ± ± 410 44;, BoucÏek 46±48), 1988a: 570; Noyes and Valentine,

[Features of R. basalis described by BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) are newly illustrated

by by a photograph of the fore wing (®gure 46) and scanning electron micrographs of

Downloaded (

the and likely ®gure head tarsus is 44 a (®) closely. gures Examination (®gures 33 related, 41 34,), 42 mesosoma species of), three hind enables R (wing ®. gures basalis us (® to 35 gure amend females ±38 43),) antenna three and and apical statements a (® fourth gures two 39 female in, gastral 40 the), of protibia original terga what description of the genus and species, and ®gures 1 and 3 in BoucÏek and Noyes (1987). Rotoita was described originally as having the prepectus apparently absent. Although not externally visible in dry-mounted specimens, a slender prepectus is visible along the anterior margin of the mesopleuron in the slide-mounted paratype of R. basalis . The prepectus appears to be ventrally narrowed and fused with the mesepisternum (®gure 48). BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) also illustrated and described the axillae as being widely separated and strongly advanced. All point-mounted females have a short, transverse or somewhat obliquely angled sulcus adjacent to the tegula (®gures 35, 37, 38). However, the oblique line extending to the anterolateral corner of the scutellum from the transverse sulcus in ®gure 3 of BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) does not exist (®gures 35, 37, 38). Rather, the line represents the inner margin of an underlying, narrow, elongate structure (axillar phragma) that is visible in the slide-mounted, cleared specimen from which the drawing was made (®gure 47). The axillae apparently are indistinguishably fused with the mesoscutum except for

2014 February 14 38: 02 at] Bath of University [by Downloaded the short sulcus adjacent to the base of each fore wing, which likely are the only remaining indications of the anterior margins of the axillae and of the transscutal articulation (®gures 35, 37, 38) (see further under Discussion). BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) also described the costal cell as being about one-quarter as long as the fore wing, the marginal vein as being slightly shorter than the costal cell, and the stigmal vein as being about one-quarter as long as the marginal vein. The submarginal vein was illustrated as reaching the anterior margin of the wing slightly distal to the basal vein (BoucÏek and Noyes, 1987, ®gure 1). However, appearance of the relative lengths of the costal cell and marginal vein depend partly at the angle from which the wing is viewed and back-lit by illumination. All point-mounted specimens actually have the marginal vein only about half as long as illustrated by BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) because the submarginal vein extends from the basal vein about half the distance to the base of the stigmal vein before attaining the anterior margin of the wing. Although very narrowly attenuate beyond the basal vein the costal cell is longer than was illustrated, with the marginal vein being subequal in length or only slightly longer than the stigmal vein (®gure 46).

The original description of Rotoita is supplemented with the following: fore wing stigma with cluster of four placoid sensilla divided into two groups of two separated by a distinct gap; hind wing with three hamuli at apex of marginal vein and with four setae in a row on dorsal surface of marginal vein opposite the hamuli (®gure 43); protibia with a row of spatulate setae (protibial comb) along anterior apical margin (®gure 41); protibial spur with tines of bifurcation long, straight and parallel (®gures 41, 42); protarsus with tarsal comb composed of three spatulate setae on basitarsus and two spatulate setae on second tarsomere (®gure 41); propodeum sometimes with callus diOEerentiated by a ®ne, oblique carina extending from anterior margin of propodeum medial to spiracle, behind and lateral to spiracle, where it is abruptly recurved and extended to posterior margin of propodeum as dark sulcus parallel with lateral margin of propodeum; mesofurca with short anterior interfurcal process on each lateral furcal arm (®gure 47); metafurcae widely separated (®gure 47); mesotergal±mesotrochanteral muscle inserted into golf tee-like pedicel above mesocoxa (®gure 47).

Remarks. We agree with BoucÏek and Noyes (1987) that the female Rotoita from Huia probably represents a very similar but separate species from R. basalis . In addition to having distinct setiferous punctures on the frontovertex as well as other more subtle diOEerences mentioned by them, its propodeum has a distinct, oblique post-spiracular propodeal carina that posterior and lateral to the spiracle recurves toward the posterior margin of the propodeum as a dark sulcus. Specimens of R. basalis have a very ®ne longitudinal sulcus posterior and lateral to the spiracle (®gure 37), but they lack the oblique post-spiracular carina (®gures 35, 37). Additional specimens are required to substantiate that the observed diOEerences are interspeci®c and are not correlated with a larger body size, as remarked by BoucÏek and Noyes (1987).