FIGITIDAE Thomson, 1862

Paretas-Martínez, Jordi & Pujade-Villar, Juli, 2013, Review of Amphithectus Hartig, 1840 (Hymenoptera: Cynipoidea: Figitidae: Figitinae), with description of Amphithectus coriaceus n. sp., Zoosystema 35 (2), pp. 183-194 : 185-186

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5252/z2013n2a4
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/C42DB95F-FFBA-FFAF-00CA-FC0EFD62AF24
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	FIGITIDAE Thomson, 1862
status

Treatment

Family FIGITIDAE Thomson, 1862 View in CoL View at ENA Subfamily FIGITINAE Thomson, 1862

Genus Amphithectus Hartig, 1840 ( Figs 1A, C View FIG ; 2 View FIG ; 3 View FIG ; 4A, C View FIG )

Amphithectus Hartig, 1840: 203 .

Amphitectus — Dahlbom 1842: 6, unjustified emendation.

TYPE SPECIES. — Amphithectus dahlbomi Hartig, 1840 . (original spelling dahlbohmii , see below)

DISTRIBUTION. — Europe.

DIAGNOSIS. — Characters between parantheses refer to other figitine genera to which Amphithectus is compared. Amphithectus can be distinguished from Sarothrus and all other genera of Figitinae having metasoma very large, longer than head+mesosoma ( Fig. 2E View FIG ), and very compressed, thinner than mesosoma ( Fig. 1A View FIG ); seventh sternite – hypopygium – is also very large and protruded ( Fig. 1C View FIG ). Sarothrus and other figitine genera have metasoma not as long neither as compressed ( Fig. 1B View FIG ), and seventh sternite is never as large nor protruded ( Fig. 1D View FIG ). Other characters to distinguish Amphithectus from Sarothrus are (both sexes): Amphithectus has brown wings ( Fig. 4C View FIG ) while Sarothrus has wings completely hyaline ( Fig. 4D View FIG ); Amphithectus has lateral areas of lower face slightly coriaceous with a wide stronger coriaceous band on malar space ( Figs 2A View FIG , 3A View FIG , 4A View FIG ), while Sarothrus has lateral areas of lower face smooth with anterior half of malar space – next to mouth area – with a sulcus ( Fig. 4B View FIG ).

D ESCRIPTION

Amphithectus females can be easily distinguished from other genera of Figitinae by metasomal morphology explained above. Furthermore, Amphithectus can be distinguished from Neralsia Cameron, 1883 , Xyalophora Kieffer, 1901 , and Xyalophoroides Jiménez & Pujade-Villar, 2008 , lacking scutellar spine (these genera have scutellar spine); from Figites Latreille, 1802 , Foersthomorus Pujade-Villar & Petersen-Silva, 2012 (= Homorus Förster, 1869 ), Seitneria Tavares, 1928 , Trischiza Förster, 1869 , Zygosis Förster, 1869 , having two lateral patches of setae at base of T3 (glabrous in these genera); from Paraschiza Weld, 1944 , having scutellar disk dull, carinate (smooth); from Sarothrioides Belizin, 1961 having female antenna 13-segmented (14-segmented) and face not striate (striate); from Lonchidia Thomson, 1962 , having radial cell closed (open), scutellum with two distinct foveae (one large), female antenna with distal segments not enlarged (enlarged); from Sarothrus , having wing hyaline and facial sculpture ( Fig. 4 View FIG A-D); from Nebulovena Pujade-Villar & Paretas Martinez, 2012 and Ferpereira Pujade-Villar, 2013 having head oval in anterior view (subtriangular) (for all these characters, see Pujade-Villar et al. 2013: figs 6-8). Some specimens of Sarothrus and Amphitectus are very similar morphologically to Melanips Haliday, 1835 . After Buffington et al. (2007) the genus Melanips is included in the Aspicerinae (previously placed in the Figitinae ); however, this placement is controversial because Melanips does not have any of the two morphological synapormorphies of the Aspicerinae before mentioned. Thus, the Aspicerinae ( Aspicerinae + Melanips ) is supported genetically ( Buffington et al. 2007, 2012) but not morphologically; we refer to this group as Aspicerinae “ sensu lato ” in front of the Aspicerinae “ sensu stricto ” ( Aspicerinae without Melanips ) according to Ros-Farré & Pujade-Villar (2013).

Length

Female: 3.75-4.6 mm. Male: 3.3-3.5 mm.

Coloration

Head and mesosoma black, metasoma brownreddish. Legs brown; antenna dark brown to black.

Head ( Figs 2A, C View FIG ; 3A View FIG )

Oval in anterior view, sculpture coriaceus ( Fig. 2A, C View FIG ) or smooth with piliferous points ( Fig. 3A View FIG ) in females, males coriaceous, with uniformly distributed or sparse setae. Compound eyes without setae. Transfacial line subequal to distance from anterior ocellus to tentorial pits. Face without carinae or strigae; small wrinkled area below each torulus present ( Fig. 2A View FIG ) or absent ( Fig. 3A View FIG ). Tentorial pits small. Inferior margin of clypeus undulate; clypeopleurostomal lines clearly seen, deep and strong ( Fig. 2A View FIG ), or marked ( Fig. 3A View FIG ) by a change of curvature. Malar space with coriaceous band, lacking malar sulcus. Occiput and genae without carinae.

Antenna

Female: 13-segmented. Male: 14-segmented, F1 very slightly curved or not ( Fig. 3C View FIG ).

Mesosoma ( Fig. 2 View FIG B-E; 3B, D)

Coriaceus ( Fig. 2B, D View FIG ) or smooth ( Fig. 3B View FIG ). Mesoscutum+pronotum with uniformly distributed short setae or sparse, but never densely.

Pronotum: Pronotal carinae extending to dorsal pronotal margin, forming a slightly upraised plate; lateral areas of without carinae. Mesoscutum: Coriaceus ( Fig. 2B, D View FIG ) or smooth with piliferous points ( Fig. 3B View FIG ); notauli complete ( Fig. 2B View FIG ) or incomplete ( Fig. 3B View FIG ); parascutal sulcus wide only in basal half; parapsidal, antero-admedian lines present superficially ( Fig. 2B View FIG ) or absent ( Fig. 3B View FIG ); median mesoscutal impression present ( Fig. 2B View FIG ) or absent ( Fig. 3B View FIG ). Scutellum ( Figs 2B View FIG , 3B View FIG ): Scutellar foveae rounded, clearly delimited on all margins, smooth inside; entire scutellum disk behind foveae irregularly carinate; circumscutellar carina absent. Mesopleuron ( Fig. 2E View FIG ): Mesopleural triangle clearly visible, with very short setae, not dense; lower half with longitudinal furrows/carinae curving upwards in anterior area; upper half smooth, not coriaceous. Propodeum ( Fig. 3D View FIG ): Propodeal carinae straight, each carina dividing in two at posterior end forming two carinae, one towards centre and one towards posterolateral area.

Forewing ( Figs 3E View FIG , 4C View FIG )

Darkened ( Fig. 4C View FIG ). Uniformly distributed short setae present on wing surface and margins. Radial cell closed ( Fig. 3E View FIG ), around 2.5-2.7 times longer than wide; veins brown; R1 vein short, R2 almost straight, Rs completely straight, M and Rs+M veins very hyaline but visible. Areola visible, sometimes spectral.

Legs Metatibia with two short spurs sub-equal in length, much shorter than one-third length of tarsomere 1. Tarsal claws simple.

Metasoma ( Figs 1A; 1C View FIG ; 2E View FIG ; 3D,F View FIG )

Female. Metasoma longer than head+mesosoma ( Fig. 2E View FIG ), and very compressed, thinner than mesosoma ( Fig. 1A View FIG ). T2 very short, with very weak longitudinal strigae ( Fig. 3F View FIG ); T3 with two short latero-dorsal patches of setae at base ( Fig. 3F View FIG ); T3+T4 covering anterior half of metasoma; remaining tergites short, telescoped within T4; seventh sternite very large laterally covering the distal part of 9 th and the third valvifer ( Figs 1C View FIG ; 2E View FIG ). Ventral spine short ( Figs 1C View FIG ; 2E View FIG ).

Male ( Fig. 3D View FIG ). Metasoma shorter than head+mesosoma, not compressed. T2 long, longitudinally striate; T3 with two lateral patches of setae at base; T3+T4 covering anterior two thirds of metasoma; remaining tergites short, telescoped within T4.

Biology

Attacks larvae of schizophoran. Fergusson (1986) mentioned as host Anthomyiidae .

REMARKS

Hartig’s (1840) original spelling is Amphithectus . It was spelled “ Amphitectus ” by Dahlbom (1842). Hartig (1843: 419) spelled this genus both Amphithectus and Amphitectus . The Dahlbom spelling was followed by Giraud (1860), Thomson (1862), Ronquist (1999), and Paretas-Martínez et al. (2012), among others.Nevertheless, Hartig’s original spelling must be respected according to ICZN articles 32.5.1.