Illidops suevus ( Reinhard, 1880 )

Höcherl, Amelie, 2025, Revision of Holarctic Illidops Mason (Hymenoptera, Braconidae): A first step towards resolving a dark taxon and descriptions of three new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 1031, pp. 1-121 : 82-85

Illidops suevus ( Reinhard, 1880)

Fig. 48; Tables 7–8

Apanteles suevus Reinhard, 1880: 364 .

Apanteles minutus Szépligeti, 1896: 305 .

Apanteles brevisternis Tobias, 1964: 229–230 , fig. 49.

Apanteles suspicax Tobias, 1964: 230–231 , fig. 50.

Apanteles dion Nixon, 1965: 183 , fig. 206.

Apanteles sesostris Nixon, 1976: 714–715 , fig. 16.

Other material examined

UKRAINE – Kherson Region • 1 ♀; Chornomorsk [Chornomorskyi Nature Reserve], Ivano- Rybalchansky area ; [ 46.457° N, 32.149° E]; [ 4 m]; 14 Aug. 1978; A. Kotenko leg.; A. Kotenko det.; mixed grass; CNC, CNCHYM 01526 .

Species concept

Our species concept is based on our examination of an authoritatively identified female specimen stored in the CNC ( CNCHYM 01526, identified by Kotenko) and the information available in Tobias (1964), Nixon (1965, 1976), Papp (1981), and Tobias & Kotenko (1986). In addition, the species is morphologically very distinct and unlikely to be confused. However, molecular data showed high cryptic diversity in this species, so we consider our overall current concept moderate rather than good → **

Ecology / host information

Psychidae : Rebelia sp. ( Papp 1984), Epichnopterix sp. according to Nixon’s (1976) treatment of junior synonym A. dion .

Distribution

PAL: Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran, Kazakhstan, Korea, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia (IRK), Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Molecular data

We observed specimens of three barcoding clusters which morphologically match the concept of I. suevus : BOLD:ACT9426 ( Fig. 49), BOLD:AEI1345 ( Figs 50–51) and BOLD:AEJ7522 ( Fig. 52). However, these clusters are far apart from each other with minimum p-distances of 9.63% (BOLD:AEJ7522– BOLD:ACT9426), 13.57% (BOLD:AEI1345–BOLD:ACT9426), and 13.63% (BOLD:AEI1345– AEJ7522). The clusters are clearly separated, also taking into account the much lower within-BIN maximum p-distances ranging between 0.32% and 2.03% (see Table 7). The Nearest Neighbors (NN) in the BOLD database are different clusters, not identified to species level, and, in two cases, only male specimens are available. All three BINs match the morphology of I. suevus , and we cannot find consistent morphological differences other than some difference in size between the specimens of BOLD:ACT9426 and the other two clusters. We consider it likely that I. suevus represents a complex of morphologically cryptic species but we cannot match any of our clusters to the name I. suevus or other junior synonyms based on morphology. In addition to that, the NN BINs (and their NN’s) would also need to be considered and identified.

Remarks

The posterior smooth band of the scutellum of the material available to us is barely invaded by punctures from the scutellar disc and shows little to no sculpture, and the propodeum is very coarsely reticulate, much more sculptured than in most Illidops . The hypopygium of voucher specimens of the BINs we tentatively associate with this species is also much less flexible and pleated than in other species of Illidops . This species represents one of the more aberrant species of Illidops and the former butalidisgroup (e.g., Nixon 1965, 1976; Papp 1984) but has been considered to fit the concept of the genus by many authors (e.g., Papp 1988; Fernandez-Triana et al. 2020). Nixon (1965, 1976) did not include Apanteles suevus in his butalidis -group. However, he described a junior synonym of the species, Apanteles dion , as part of the group and commented that A. dion is a “is a highly aberrant species and I am not satisfied that I am correct in placing it in the butalidis-group ” ( Nixon 1965: 183), and later comments that the species is “occupying a marginal position within the group” ( Nixon 1976: 713). He had also included A. sesostris Nixon, 1976 in the butalidis -group, only known from the male holotype and another future synonym of I. suevus . Papp (1984), in his own words, “developed” Nixon’s species groups and described the suevus -group as a new species group which comprised this single species. In that process, he studied many types and synonymized several species under the concept of A. suevus . Papp (1988) later integrated the Palearctic species into Mason’s genera and in that process considered A. suevus as part of Illidops .

The species is represented by three barcoding clusters (BINs) in our dataset. There are no significant morphological differences between these clusters (compare Figs 49–52), except for one specimen being noticeably larger than representatives of the other two clusters. Additional specimens matching this species morphologically have been located by JFT in MNCN and there is another specimen stored at the CNC from Iran. This ‘species’ may potentially represent a complex of morphologically cryptic species. The genus of the potential Psychidae host, Rebelia sp. , was identified through rearing experiments by Dr L. Gozmány in Montenegro and includes some very widespread species. Locality details of the junior synonym types and additional information can be reviewed in Papp (1984).

Illidops suevus has five junior synonyms (see Table 8). Apanteles polonicus Fahringer, 1936 is listed as a junior synonym of I. suevus in Taxapad ( Yu et al. 2016), the world checklist ( Fernandez-Triana et al. 2020), and potentially more literature. However, Fahringer (1936) did not describe this as a new species, he merely mentioned a variant of A. suevus described by Niezabitowski (1909). His wording is: “Niezabitowsky describes an ab. [aberration] ( polonicus m.) as follows” ( Fahringer 1936: 205) and then repeats Niezabitowsky’s (1909) morphological description of a specimen collected in Poland, Bieńkowice. We conclude that this name was never formally assigned and can hence be disregarded as a junior synonym of I. suevus for potential efforts to match the different barcoding clusters to existing names. The specimen described by Niezabitowsky is most likely stored in Krakow, Museum of Natural History and Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences collection ( Haris 2016).