Tetramesa amica Lotfalizadeh, 2020
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1005.56353 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FB01F523-32C8-455C-A7BD-C0FE4F00EC08 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A116AC65-D628-4F3D-AB44-B3766C9F1DB7 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:A116AC65-D628-4F3D-AB44-B3766C9F1DB7 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Tetramesa amica Lotfalizadeh |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Tetramesa amica Lotfalizadeh sp. nov. Figures 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2
Type material.
Holotype: female, ex Taeniatherum caput-medusae , 8 May 2017, 27 July 2018, and 21 May 2019 (galls collection dates), by F. Marini (deposited in HMIM); Paratypes: 20♀♀ & 3♂♂, same data as holotype (deposited in HMIM & CBGP).
Type locality.
Highway E90, between E0 Ardaniou Orestiadas and E0 Alexandroupoli Kipon, ca. 5 km west of the border of Greece-Turkey and 1.3 km northeast of Vrysoùla (40°56'58"N, 26°14'59"E), 40 m above sea level, Dimos Alexandroupoli, Greece.
Diagnosis.
Tetramesa amica Lotfalizadeh, sp. nov. differs from other species of Tetramesa by the combination of the following characters: in female, F1-2 longer than broad, F3-5 as long as broad; fore wing with an obscure black spot under marginal vein; gaster longer than head+ mesosoma; marginal vein much longer than postmarginal and stigmal veins; in male all funiculars longer than wide, with long setae, longer than width of funicule; F1-3 as same as long.
Description.
Holotype Female. Body length 2.4 mm. Black, coxae black, pro- and mesofemur brown with a median dark band, metafemur dark brown at apex, all tibiae brown with a faint dark brown median band, tarsi bright yellow, except last tarsomere; tegula dark medially and brown in margin; pronotum with pair of small yellow spots antero-laterally; fore wing hyaline, slightly infuscate below marginal vein; veins yellowish brown. Antenna mainly dark, except scape basally, pedicel in distal half and anellus brownish; ovipositor brown. Setae on body whitish, those on wings blackish.
Head in dorsal view stout, 1.7 × as broad as long, distinctly wider than pronotum; temple rounded laterally, very short, 2.0 × shorter than eye. POL 2.1 × OOL (13:6). Head in frontal view, wider than height (18:14); malar space shorter than longitudinal eye diameter (6:8). Ventral margin of clypeus slightly emarginated (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ), dorsally smooth, laterally strigose. Scrobe relatively deep, unclearly bordered, with subparallel edges, tapering only slightly basally. Eye glabrous; cheek shorter than longitudinal diameter of eye (60:80). Face sculpture distinct, reticulated-cellular, with very short and sparse pubescence. Head, in lateral view, ca. 1.3 × as long as wide.
Antenna (Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ) inserted distinctly above middle of face; scape long (100:22), not convex, reaching level of anterior ocellus; pedicel 1.36 × as long as wide (34:25); with 5 funiculars, anellus small, ca. 1.5 × as broad as long (8:14); F1 long, 1.5 × as long as wide (32:16), F2 longer than broad (27:20), F3 as long as broad (24:24), F4 slightly wider (24:25), F5 wider than long (25:28); with three clavomeres, clavomeres clearly separated, C1 (24: 30), C2 (27:30), C3 (33:30), width of clava exceeding width of flagellum (30:28).
Mesosoma in lateral view elongated (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ), relatively convex, with mesonotum and mesoscutellum at the same level. Propodeum 2.0 × as wide as long (14:7), with slight median depression, three longitudinally irregular rugae, peripherally coarsely rugose (Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ), slightly inclined relative to mesonotum (ca. 70°), in dorsal view ca. 0.7 × as long as mesoscutellum (70:105), almost half as long as mesoscutum (70:140). Mesoscutellum as long as wide medially. Pronotum and mesonotum reticulate, with scattered and inconspicuous umbilicate sculpture, more distinct on mesoscutellum and pronotum. Metacoxa elongate, weakly reticulated.
Fore wing (Fig. 2E View Figure 2 ) ca. 2.2 × as long as its maximum width, infuscate under marginal vein. Marginal vein relatively long and slightly expanded; ratio of marginal, postmarginal and stigmal veins: 70:55:55 (Fig. 2F View Figure 2 ).
Metasoma elongated, narrowed apically (in lateral view) (Fig. 2C View Figure 2 ), longer than head + mesosoma, with extremely short petiole, Gt1 longest, shorter than Gt2 and Gt3 combined; relative measurements Gt1-7: 26, 23, 17, 10, 13, 5, 7. All terga shiny, Gt5-7 weakly reticulated.
Male. Length of body 2.1-2.3 mm. Coloration and sculpture as in females, but yellow spots smaller and predominant on face and upper corners of pronotum. Antenna (Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ) with seven flagellomeres and long pubescence. Petiole of first tergum short, at most twice longer than its width. Metasoma long, 0.5-0.65 × as long as mesosoma.
Comparative notes.
Tetramesa amica is closely related to Tetramesa inermis Erdös, 1963, T. matrana Erdös, 1969, and T. cylindrica . Diagnostic characters that enable one to discriminate T. amica sp. nov. from these species are presented in Tables 1 View Table 1 - 3 View Table 3 .
The antenna of T. amica sp. nov. resembles that of T. fumipennis except F1 that is not constricted basally (Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ) (conical in T. fumipennis ), with five funiculars, with three clavomeres (respectively six and two in T. fumipennis ), head in its lower part wider than in T. fumipennis and gaster more flattened dorsally than in T. fumipennis .
Etymology.
The specific epithet derives from the Latin noun amicus (i.e., friendship) and refers to the friendship between entomologists from different countries (France, Iran, and Italy), which made possible the sampling, discovery, and description of this new species.
Host.
Medusahead, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski ( Poaceae ). Adults are phytophagous and lay eggs into medusahead stems. Oviposition and larval development induce a response of the plant, which produces stem galls, from which adults emerge.
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.