Cotesia nonagriae (Olliff)

Muirhead, Kate, Austin, Andrew & Sallam, Mohamed, 2008, The systematics and biology of Cotesia nonagriae (Olliff) stat. rev. (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae), a newly recognized member of the Cotesia flavipes species complex, Zootaxa 1846, pp. 35-46 : 38-40

Cotesia nonagriae (Olliff) stat. rev.

( Figs. 2–4 )

Apanteles nonagriae Olliff, 1893: 376 [original description]; Wilkinson (1928b): 136 [type data, biology, taxonomic status].

Apanteles flavipes ( Cameron, 1891) ; Wilkinson (1928a): 93 [synonymy of A. nonagriae Viereck ]; Wilkinson (1929): 108 [synonymy A. nonagriae Olliff ]; Shenefelt (1972): 509 [complete taxonomic bibliography]. Cotesia flavipes Cameron, 1891: 185 [original description]; Mason (1981): 113 [resurrected the genus with C. flavipes as type]; Austin and Dangerfield (1992): 21 [status and hosts for Australia].

Material examined. Queensland: 21Ψ 3ɗ Bundaberg, 12-30.xi.2004, K. Muirhead (10Ψ 1ɗ ANIC, 11Ψ 2ɗ WINC); 16Ψ 2ɗ Mackay, 12-30.xi.2004, K. Muirhead (6Ψ 1ɗ ANIC, 10Ψ 1ɗ WINC); 14Ψ 3ɗ Giru [via Townsville], 5.x.2003, M. Sallam (9Ψ 1ɗ QDPI, 5Ψ 2ɗ WINC): 3Ψ 1ɗ ‘ parasite larva sugar-cane moth ’ ‘ Apanteles nonagriae Olliff’, no date or locality (1Ψ AM, 2Ψ 1ɗ ASCT).

Female. Length. Body 2.1–2.4 mm

Colour. Body black, metasomal sterna including hypopygium dark brown to brown, antenna dark brown with scape lighter, palps yellow; legs yellow brown with tarsus slightly darker, mesocoxa pale brown, metacoxa dark brown to black basally grading to brown apically; forewing stigma brown, venation slightly lighter.

Head. In anterior view oval in shape, substantially wider than high, eyes slightly converging ventrally, face slightly rugulose-punctate to punctuate; in lateral view oval (globular) in shape, only slightly higher than long, gena and temples rugulose-punctate to punctuate, slightly more striate along posterior eye margin; in dorsal view vertex and occiput moderately smooth except for scattered fine punctures associated with sparse short setae, frons usually smooth but sometimes with faint striations along eye margin.

Mesosoma. Strongly flattened dorsoventrally so that posterior two-thirds of scutum, scutellum, anterior part of propodeum and ventral margin of mesopleuron horizontal and parallel; in dorsal view scutum punctate anteriorly, mostly smooth posteriorly and along midline, notauli indicated by posterior extension of anterior punctuate area and smooth areas on either side but disappearing before reaching posterior margin; medial scutellum smooth with sparse setae, posterior margin broad; propodeum coarsely rugose-punctate, often with indistinct carina around spiracle and oblique lateral carina converging posteriorly; in lateral view mesopleuron smooth, sternaulus faintly indicated along dorsal margin by sparse punctures; metapleuron rugose-punctate in posterior part, smooth in anterior part; dorsal and outer surfaces of hind coxa punctuate; forewing veins r and 2RS usually meeting at distinct angle, sometimes with small stub of 3RS present; 2M 0.5 to almost 1.0X as long as 2RS.

Metasoma. Tergum 1 almost as wide at posterior margin as long, lateral margins strongly diverging posteriorly; longitudinally striate-rugulose, often with incomplete medial longitudinal carina; tergum 2 longitudinally striate-rugulose with smoother longitudinal area medially and laterally; remaining terga smooth with sparse longish setae.

Male. As for female except: antenna slightly longer and lighter in colour; punctuate sculpturing on scutum, particularly in anterior part, slightly denser; genitalia very similar to C. flavipes ; aedeagal-volsella shaft elongate; volsella more than 4.0X as long as wide, digital (apical) teeth minute; aedeagus barely protruding past apex of parameres and volsella.

Comments. The description above is largely based on specimens from Bundaberg. For specimens from Mackay and Giru, the degree of sculpturing on the face and gena is less pronounced, and the frons and temples are completely smooth. These populations also have the propodeum less coarsely sculptured and rugulose rather than rugulose-punctate and tergum 1 lacking a medial longitudinal carina. As such they are more similar to C. flavipes . The specimens in AM and ASCT have identical labels and are clearly very old. We initially considered that they were part of Olliff’s original material and therefore a likely syntype series. This was based on the age of the material and that there are several lectotypes of Olliff species in the AM, including that of T. howardi (designated by Bouc k 1988) which was described by Olliff in the same paper as C. nonagriae . However, comparison of the labels on Olliff specimens in the AM shows that the handwriting is different to the AM and ASCT specimens, and so they cannot be directly associated with that used in the original description of C. nonagriae . The specimens in AM and ASCT have the face and gena smooth and are therefore more similar to the recently collected material from Mackay and Giru.

Figures

FIGURE 2. A – C: Cotesia nonagriae (Bundaberg, Australia), head. (A) lateral view, (B) dorsal view, (C) anterior view. D – F: C. nonagriae (Mackay, Australia), head. (D) lateral view, (E) dorsal view, (F) anterior view. G – I: C. flavipes (India), head. (G) lateral view, (H) dorsal view, (I) anterior view.

FIGURE 3. A – C: Cotesia nonagriae (Bundaberg, Australia): (A) mesosoma, lateral view, (B) posterior mesosoma and terga 1 – 3, dorsal view, (C) mesosoma, dorsal view. D: C. flavipes (India), mesosoma, dorsal view.

FIGURE 4. A – E: Male genitalia of Cotesia flavipes complex species. (A) C. nonagriae (Australia), (B) C. flavipes (India), (C) C. flavipes (Japan), (D) C. sesamiae (Kenya), (E) C. chilonis (China).