Habroteleia Kieffer

Chen, Hua-yan, Talamas, Elijah J., Masner, Lubomir & Johnson, Norman F., 2018, Revision of the world species of the genus Habroteleia Kieffer (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae, Scelioninae), ZooKeys 730, pp. 87-122: 87-88

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.730.21846

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:28DFECE9-8723-4ACA-BB61-96B11C9546A8

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/1253463E-E9BC-D041-7E2D-898B67D20AD7

treatment provided by

ZooKeys by Pensoft

scientific name

Habroteleia Kieffer
status

 

Habroteleia Kieffer 

Habroteleia  Kieffer, 1905: 14 (original description. Type: Habroteleia flavipes  Kieffer, by monotypy); Kieffer 1908: 114 (keyed); Brues 1908: 27, 38 (diagnosis, list of species, keyed); Kieffer 1910: 63, 69 (description, list of species, keyed); Kieffer 1913: 220 (description); Kieffer 1926: 267, 363 (description, keyed, key to species); Muesebeck and Walkley 1956: 357 (citation of type species); Baltazar 1961: 395 (synonymy); Baltazar 1966: 177 (cataloged, catalog of species of the Philippines); Masner 1976: 10, 26 (description, keyed); Mani and Sharma 1982: 155, 167 (description, keyed); Johnson 1992: 398 (cataloged, catalog of world species); Austin and Field 1997: 24, 68 (structure of ovipositor system, discussion of phylogenetic relationships, genus misplaced in Calliscelionini  ); Lê 2000: 31 (keyed); Kononova and Kozlov 2008: 23, 255 (description, keyed); Chen et al. 2013: 11 (keyed).

http://zoobank.org/CBFA7C74-68DD-44F2-BE05-AEBD88E6FA8D

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/488

Chrestoteleia  Kieffer, 1913: 388 (original description. Type: Chrestoteleia bakeri  Kieffer, by monotypy and original designation. Synonymized by Baltazar (1961)); Kieffer 1926: 271, 442 (description, keyed, key to species); Muesebeck and Walkley 1956: 342 (citation of type species); Baltazar 1961: 395 (junior synonym of Habroteleia  Kieffer); Baltazar 1966: 182 (cataloged, catalog of species of the Philippines).

http://zoobank.org/4EA90A05-D50A-42BF-B1C0-852F4B56FCBA

http://bioguid.osu.edu/xbiod_concepts/8933

Crestoteleia  Kieffer: Kieffer 1916: 180 (key to new species described from the Philippines, spelling error).

Description.

Length 2.18-5.18 mm; body moderately to markedly elongate, robust.

Head. Head shape in dorsal view: transverse. Hyperoccipital carina: absent. Occipital carina: present, complete or broadly interrupted medially. Anterior margin of occipital carina: crenulate. OOL: lateral ocellus nearly contiguous with inner orbits, OOL < 0.5 OD; lateral ocellus contiguous with inner orbit. Upper frons: convex, without frontal shelf or carina. Antennal scrobe: broadly convex or conave medially with distinct depression. Sculpture of antennal scrobe: smooth to punctate. Submedian carina: absent. Orbital carina: absent. Inner orbits: diverging ventrally. IOS/EH: IOS distinctly less than EH. Interantennal process: short, often excavate medially. Central keel: present or absent. Antennal foramen: oriented laterally on interantennal process. Facial striae: absent. Malar sulcus: present. Setation of compound eye: absent. Gena: broad, convex, distinctly produced behind eye. Clypeus shape: narrow, slightly convex medially, lateral corners not produced. Anterior (or ventral) margin of clypeus: straight. Anteclypeus: absent. Postclypeus: absent. Labrum: not visible in anterior view. Number of mandibular teeth: 2. Arrangement of mandibular teeth: transverse. Number of maxillary palpomeres: 4. Shape of maxillary palpomeres: cylindrical. Number of labial palpomeres: 2.

Antenna. Number of antennomeres in female: 12. Number of antennomeres in male: 12. Insertion of radicle into A1: parallel to longitudinal axis of A1. Shape of A1: more or less cylindrical, not flattened. Length of A3 of female: distinctly longer than A2. Number of clavomeres in female antenna: 6. Number of antennomeres with multiporous plate sensilla in female: 5. Arrangement of doubled multiporous plate sensilla on female clava: in longitudinal pairs. Number of antennomeres bearing tyloids in male antenna: 0. Shape of male flagellum: filiform.

Mesosoma. Transverse pronotal carina: present anterior to epomial carina, present or absent posterior to epomial carina. Posterior apex of pronotum in dorsal view: straight, bifid apically to articulate with tegula. Epomial carina: present. Anterior face of pronotum: oblique, visible dorsally, short. Lateral face of pronotum: weakly concave below position of dorsal epomial carina. Netrion: present. Netrion shape: moderately wide, open ventrally. Anterior portion of mesoscutum: vertical, flexed ventrally to meet pronotum. Mesoscutum shape: pentagonal, excavate at base of wings. Skaphion: absent. Notauli: present, percurrent. Parapsidal lines: absent. Antero-admedian lines: absent. Transscutal articulation: well-developed, narrow. Shape of mesoscutellum: trapezoidal. Lateral mesoscutellar spine: absent. Median mesoscutellar spine: absent. Axillular spine: absent. Surface of mesoscutellum: convex throughout. Median longitudinal furrow on mesoscutellum: absent; present. Metascutellum: clearly differentiated. Form of metascutellum: transverse. Posterior margin of metascutellum: straight with a small projection medially. Setation of metascutellum: absent. Metapostnotum: not defined externally. Lateral propodeal projection: present. Median propodeal projection: present. Mesopleural carina: present. Mesal course of acetabular carina: not separating fore coxae. Mesopleural pit: present. Posterodorsal corner of mesopleuron: rounded anteriorly.

Legs. Number of mesotibial spurs: 1. Number of metatibial spurs: 1. Dorsal surface of metacoxa: smooth; punctate. Shape of metacoxa: cylindrical, ecarinate. Trochantellus: indicated by transverse sulcus on femur.

Wings. Wing development of female: macropterous. Wing development of male: macropterous. Tubular veins in fore wing: present. Bulla of fore wing R: absent. Length of marginal vein of fore wing: more than twice as long as stigmal vein. Origin of r-rs in fore wing: arising from marginal vein along costal margin. Basal vein (Rs+M) in fore wing: absent. Development of R vein in hind wing: complete.

Metasoma. Number of external metasomal tergites in female: 6. Number of external metasoma sternites in female: 6. Number of external metasomal tergites in male: 8. Number of external metasomal sternites in male: 8. Shape of metasoma: lanceolate. Laterotergites: present, narrow. Laterosternites: present. T1 of female: flat; medially convex as a small hump anteriorly. Relative size of metasomal segments: T3 longest, T2 and T4 subequal in length. Metasomal tergites with basal crenulae: T2. Sublateral carinae on tergites: absent. Median longitudinal carina on metasomal terga: absent. Shape of female T6: flattened. Anterior margin of S1: not produced anteriorly, straight. Felt fields: absent. Ovipositor: Ceratobaeus  -type ( Austin and Field 1997).

Diagnosis.

Habroteleia  can be separated from other scelionines by the combination of the following characters: epomial carina present; malar and facial striae absent; marginal vein many times longer than stigmal vein; postmarginal vein (R1) absent or rudimentary; propodeum with lateral and median projections; T6 in females strongly depressed dorsoventrally to form a flat triangle; male antenna without tyloid ( Chen et al. 2013).

The wing venation and large size of Habroteleia  make it a relatively easy genus to identify. In all species of Habroteleia  the marginal vein is many times longer than the stigmal vein and the postmarginal vein is very short or absent. Macroteleia  and Triteleia  share the presence of a long marginal vein, though in the latter genus it is variable and the marginal and stigmal veins can be of similar length. However, both Macroteleia  and Triteleia  have a well-developed postmarginal vein. Habroteleia  also differs from these genera in that it has a Ceratobaeus  -type ovipositor ( Austin and Field 1997). The complexity of this system suggests that while these three genera are quite similar in external appearance, in fact they may not be closely related at all. Alternatively, it implies that the ovipositor system is much more labile than expected. Unfortunately, Habroteleia  was not included among the taxa in the phylogenetic analysis of Murphy et al. (2007), and we therefore do not have an independent assessment of its relations. The structure of the ovipositor is of limited use for separating Habroteleia  from Triteleia  because it is rarely extruded in preserved specimens of the latter, and it is not obvious from external morphology (e.g. visibility of T7 in females) that Habroteleia  has a Ceratobaeus  -type ovipositor. Chen et al. (2013) provided a key to separate these genera which we here present again.