Pimpla cyanipennis Brulle , 1846

Padua, Diego G., Fernandes, Daniell R. R. & Saeaeksjaervi, Ilari E., 2020, Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Ichneumonidae, Pimplinae) from Uruguay: a replacement name, new records, and an identification key to the species, ZooKeys 1007, pp. 23-47 : 23

Pimpla cyanipennis Brulle, 1846 Figures 3A-C , 4A-C

Pimpla cyanipennis Brullé, 1846: 101. Syntype: ♀, Uruguay (MNHN).

Coccygomimus cyanipennis ; Townes and Townes 1960: 328.

Diagnosis.

This species can be distinguished from the other Uruguayan species of the genus by the combination of the following character states: 1) wings darkened; 2) mesosoma and metasoma black; 3) laterotergite V 1.6-1.7 times as long as wide; 4) legs orange, except coxa, trochanter, trochantellus, apex of hind tibia and tarsus black; 5) tergite II silky shining, slightly coriaceous and mostly (except of apical rim), with almost uniformly distributed, large, strong, from more or less adjacent to confluent punctures; 6) malar space 1.0-1.2 times as long as basal width of mandibles; 7) ovipositor approx. 1.75 times as long as hind tibia; 8) ovipositor cylindric, with apex of dorsal valve without teeth and ventral valve with gently convex teeth on tip.

Biological notes.

Nothing is known about the host preferences of this species.

Distribution.

Argentina and Uruguay (Fig. 11C ).

Material examined.

Syntype, Chile (♀, EY9374), examined by photo (Fig. 3A-C ). Syntype, Chile (sex undetermined, EY9375), examined by photo (Fig. 4A-C ).

Remarks.

Brullé (1846) described P. cyanipennis based on specimens from Montevideo (Uruguay; C. Gaudichaud collector). Later, Porter (1970) expanded the distribution of the species to Argentina. However, Porter did not study the type specimens of this species, deposited at MNHN. We analyzed the syntypes (EY9374 and EY9375), and verified that the type locality on the label is in Chile (C. Gay collector). The French botanist and naturalist Claude Gay carried out several expeditions in the Andes, especially in Chile and Peru. A large part of the material deposited by him in MNHN originated from these countries. Furthermore, Gaudichaud, who was appointed by Brullé as a collector of types, made several expeditions in Uruguay and Brazil (materials also deposited in MNHN). Thus, we hypothesize that: 1) the labels may have been unintentionally replaced in specimens, 2) the photos of the labels may have been added to the specimens in a wrong way in the MNHN database, or 3) Brullé may have confused the type locality when describing this species. Townes (1961) corrected inconsistencies in type localities in some species described by Brullé in MNHN, but he did not mention this species. In fact, we have studied the type specimens by using only photos, and we believe that only an in situ specimen examination can solve this inconsistency. Thus, we have decided to report this species only from Argentina and Uruguay.

Figures

Figure 3. Pimpla cyanipennis Brulle, 1846 (Syntype, ♀) A habitus, lateral view B face, frontal view C mesosoma and part of metasoma, dorsolateral view. Figures by Christophe Herve, MNHN.

Figure 4. Pimpla cyanipennis Brulle, 1846 (Syntype, sex?) A habitus, lateral view B face, frontal view C mesosoma, dorsal view. Figures by Christophe Herve, MNHN.

Figure 11. Distribution of Pimpla spp. in Uruguay A P. albomarginata Cameron, 1886 B P. caerulea Brulle, 1846 C P. cyanipennis Brulle, 1846 D P. golbachi (Porter, 1970) E P. perssoni Gauld, 1991 F P. patirrufa nom. nov. G P. semirufa Brulle, 1846 H P. tomyris Schrottky, 1902. Gray area = Rocha Department. Red circle = previous record. Blue circle = new record.