Holopyga jurinei Chevrier, 1862

Rosa, Paolo, Felsner, Christian, Heim, René, Greeff, Michael, Michez, Denis & Bernasconi, Marco Valerio, 2025, The Palaearctic types of Chrysididae (Insecta, Hymenoptera) deposited in the Linsenmaier collection. Part 5. Elampini: genus Holopyga Dahlbom, 1845, Zootaxa 5565 (1), pp. 1-66 : 54-55

Holopyga jurinei Chevrier, 1862

( Fig. 42A–42F )

Holopyga Jurinei Chevrier, 1862: 95 . Syntypes ♂ [not ♀]; Switzerland: Geneva Lake (type depository: Geneva) (examined). Holopyga jurinei Chevrier, 1862 = Holopyga chrysonota ( Förster, 1853) : Kimsey & Bohart 1991: 230.

Holopyga jurinei : Strumia 1995: 3. Reinstated.

Holopyga jurinei Chevrier, 1862 = Holopyga lucida (Lepeletier, 1806) : present paper. New synonymy.

Remarks. The only type (syntype) of Holopyga jurinei deposited at MHNG does not match neither Linsenmaier’s (1959a) species concept nor the synonymy proposed by Kimsey & Bohart (1991) with H. chrysonota . Linsenmaier (1959a) was the first author to provide a modern species concept of H. jurinei , a species with strong chromatic dimorphism. The male has a green head and mesosoma, a dark to blackish median area anteriorly on the mesoscutum, and a red metasoma, in contrast with the female, which is blue on the head and mesosoma, with a flame-red pronotum, mesonotum, metanotum and dorsal metasoma.

However, when Linsenmaier (1959a) associated this name with specimens in his collection, he was misled by Chevrier’s original description, which stated that the type series was based solely on females. Presently, the only specimen deposited in Chevrier’s collection and labelled as a type is a male ( Fig. 42 ). This specimen is considered the type from Chevrier’s collection at MHNG. It is the only specimen bearing Chevrier’s handwritten identification label, along with a label " TYPE ", like other types by Chevrier deposited in the collection .

Chevrier (1862) apparently described Holopyga jurinei based on a syntype series. At the end of the description, he added: “ Se montre rarament, dans les localités chaudes et pierreuses, principalement sur les fleurs des petits Sedum ”. With this statement, he clearly indicated that the species is found occasionally on Sedum flowers in various localities, using the plural form and suggesting multiple observations. In the original description, he wrote “ Femelle ” (singular) providing the description of the female sex only, with no mention of the number of specimens examined. In case of uncertainty, ICZN Article 73, Recommendation 73F (“Avoidance of assumption of holotype ”), advises that a syntype series should be considered instead of a holotype.

The type specimen lacks the locality label and bears only a number, possibly referring to a code in a now-lost diary. Chevrier collected specimens only around the Lake Geneva, in Clémenty (a quartier or Nyon), and often did not pin any locality label ( Hollier et al., 2024). Nevertheless, we are confident that this specimen is one of the syntypes studied by Chevrier. In fact, no specimen of Holopyga jurinei sensu Linsenmaier (1959a) was found in Chevrier’s collection, and all the other specimens of Holopyga with red mesosoma collected in the area of the Geneva Lake by Chevrier and Tournier have been correctly indentified by Linsenmaier as H. lucida . Only two species of Holopyga in Switzerland share the same red colour pattern in males: H. lucida (Lepeletier, 1806) and H. cribrata [= H. inflammata ( Förster, 1853) ]. The specimen labelled as type of Holopyga jurinei has a genital capsule similar to H. lucida but deeper and denser body punctation on the mesosoma. Despite this difference in sculpture, we consider it conspecific with H. lucida , and it is distinguishable from the other red species, H. cribrata , by the scattered punctures on the second sternum, which are denser in H. cribrata .

Linsenmaier’s (1959a) species concept of H. jurinei is, therefore, incongruent with this red male, whose body punctation on the mesosoma and sterna also does not match the body sculpture of H. jurinei sensu Linsenmaier. Therefore , we cannot argue for a case of chromatic aberration. Even if we contend that this male is not a true syntype because the type series was based on females, there is no clear evidence that the females described by Chevrier belong to H. jurinei sensu Linsenmaier. In fact, the main diagnostic characters, such as the bicoloured pronotum, the sculpture of the second sternum and the shape of the head in dorsal view are not mentioned by Chevrier. Since all the other specimens collected around the Lake belong to H. lucida , and no specimen of H. jurinei sensu Linsenmaier was found in the collection, we are confident that the specimens described by Chevrier belong to H. lucida , which Chevrier (1862) mentioned in the synonymic list of newly described H. jurinei .

With this synonymisation, the species previously identified as Holopyga jurinei sensu Linsenmaier (1959a) remains undescribed. Therefore, we describe this taxon here with the name Holopyga dichroica Rosa , sp. nov.

Figures

FIGURE 42. Holopyga jurinei Chevrier, 1862, syntype, male. A) Habitus, dorsal view; inset: genital capsule. B) Head, frontal view. C) Head and mesosoma, dorsal view. D) Metasoma, latero-posterior view. E) Metasoma, dorsal view. F) Metasoma, ventral view.