EURYTOMIDAE

Lotfalizadeh, Hosseinali, Delvare, Gérard & Rasplus, Jean-Yves, 2007, Phylogenetic analysis of Eurytominae (Chalcidoidea: Eurytomidae) based on morphological characters, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 151 (3), pp. 441-510 : 494-495

CLASSIFICATION OF EURYTOMIDAE

Our analysis strongly suggests that the family as currently understood is not monoplyletic, a result consistent with previous morphological ( Gates, 2005) or molecular studies ( Campbell et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2004; Heraty, 2005). The Heimbrinae and Eurytominae sensu Stage & Snelling (1986) each appear to be monophyletic. The Heimbrinae are the sister group of the Chalcididae (or of some of the recognized taxa included within them).

The Rileyinae as traditionally understood are polyphyletic. Again, this result is in agreement with Gates (2007). The subfamily includes two unrelated taxa: the Rileyinae s.s. (redefined by the same author) and the Macrorileya genus group (as defined above), which was included in the Eurytominae by Gates (2007). The relationships between the Rileyinae s.s. and other chalcidoids are obviously not solved and need further analysis.

Gates (2007) synonymized the Buresiinae sensu Zerova (1988) , which included only Buresium , with the Eurytominae . We propose to keep the subfamily valid for this well-supported monophyletic group. Consequently, the subfamily now includes three genera: Buresium , Macrorileya , and Archirileya . Macrorileya is subdivided in two groups of species that may not be closely related: the type species, Macrorileya oecanthi ( Ashmead, 1894) (type examined) forms the first group, and Macrorileya antanimorae (type examined) and other undescribed Malagasy species forms the second group. M. oecanthi shares with Archirileya spp. the same sexual dimorphism: the pro- and hind femorae are enlarged in males. They also parasitize the same hosts (eggs of Orthoptera or Hemiptera ) in twigs of herbaceous plants. The only morphological character that separates both genera is found in the structure of the antenna. In Macrorileya the flagellum includes one anellus and seven funicular segments, whereas the basal funicular segments are anelliform in Archirileya . A careful examination of the antenna with SEM showed that this character shows a morphocline from Archirileya inopinata Silvestri, 1920 to M. oecanthi . The undetermined Archirileya included in the analysis exhibits an intermediate state ( Fig. 98 ). In all species the first flagellar segment bears no elongate (i.e. multiporous plate) sensilla, and the following segments vary only in length. We therefore consider Archirileya a junior synonym of Macrorileya . The Malagasy species included in Macrorileya are morphologically dissimilar. They show an extreme elongation of most parts of their body.

The Buresiinae has the following, unique combination of characteristics: flagellum with 11 flagellomeres; flagellomere 1 elongate or discoid, but without elongate sensilla (MPS); flagellomeres 2–4 elongate or anelliform, but with elongate sensilla; pronotum at least as long as mesoscutum; mesothoracic spiracle not visible; prepectus, including its ventral part, long; metapleuron partly separated from propodeum; meso- and metafurcal pits quite small (the latter visible at high magnifications only); gastral tergum 2 short; syntergum with a transverse carina in front of cercal plates.

The Buresiinae , as presently defined, are the sister group of the Eurytominae sensu Stage & Snelling (1986) , a result consistent with that obtained by Gates (2007) who used a different data set.

None of the topologies obtained in this study support the classification proposed by Ashmead (1904), Burks (1971), or Zerova (1988). The gradual pattern of evolution, with many branchs merging from a common trunk and nodes separated by short distances, better confirms the concept proposed by Stage & Snelling (1986), and followed by Bou d ek (1988) and Noyes (2002).

To conclude, we propose that the classification of monophyletic Eurytomidae includes the following subfamilies.

1. Buresiinae , including Macrorileya s.l. and Buresium .

2. Eurytominae sensu Stage & Snelling (1986) .

The taxonomic changes we proposed are listed in Appendix 2. The species removed from Eurytoma and Bruchophagus , but still awaiting a generic placement are listed in Appendix 4.

Figures

Figures 93–107. Figures 93–97: female antenna – 93, Archirileya Cicada; 94, Eurytoma ochraceipes; 95, Eurytoma volkovi; 96, Eurytoma leguminum; 97, Eurytoma braconidis. Figures 98, 100–103: pedicel and flagellomeres 1–3 – 98, Archirileya Cicada; 100, Systole Asilah; 101, Aiolomorphus rhopaloides; 102, Bruchophagus Alicante; 103, Eurytoma braconidis. Figure 99: first flagellomere; Eurytoma Cébazan. Figure 104: flagellomeres 5–6; Tetramesa linearis. Figures 105–107: female clava – 105, Systole Asilah; 106, Bruchophagus Alicante; 107, Eurytoma Cébazan.