Aleiodes schirjajewi (Kokujev, 1898)
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.919.39642 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:0CC5169A-2325-41AD-938F-179FCB056381 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/ACE6E3C7-C81F-5A63-AE5A-C438590A3E56 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Aleiodes schirjajewi (Kokujev, 1898) |
| status |
|
Aleiodes schirjajewi (Kokujev, 1898) Figs 743 View Figure 743 , 744-757 View Figures 744–757
Rhogas reticulator var. schirjajewi Kokujev, 1898: 299 [examined].
Rogas schirjajewi ; Shenefelt 1975: 1249.
Rogas (Rogas) schirjaevi [sic!]; Tobias 1976: 85.
Rogas (Rogas) schirjaewi [sic!]; Tobias 1986: 80 (transl.: 132).
Aleiodes (Neorhogas) schirjajewi ; Papp 1991a: 71, 2002: 562.
Aleiodes (Chelonorhogas) schirjajewi ; Samartsev and Belokobylskij 2013: 766.
Aleiodes schirjajewi ; Shaw et al. 1998: 63; Papp 2005: 177.
Type material.
Holotype, ♂ (ZISP), "[Kazakhstan], Kemropavl., Akmolin, 908a", "K. Kokujeva", "908a, Rh. reticulator Nees v. schirjajewi Kokw.", “Holotypus”.
Additional material.
Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine [Dagestan, Kazakhstan]. Specimens in BZL, ZJUH, MRC, MSC, MTMA, NMS, RMNH, SDEI, ZISP.
Molecular data.
None.
Biology.
Unknown. Specimens collected throughout April-September, presumably plurivoltine. We have not seen reared material and it is unclear how the winter is passed.
Diagnosis. Maximum width of hypoclypeal depression 0.3-0.4 × minimum width of face (Fig. 751 View Figures 744–757 ); length of antenna of ♀ 1.1-1.4 × fore wing; ventral margin of clypeus thick and obtuse apically and clypeus not protruding in lateral view (Fig. 753 View Figures 744–757 ); vertex and frons with strong striae or rugae; mesoscutum, metapleuron and scutellum normally shiny and without dense granulation, at most with some superficial micro-sculpture; precoxal area of mesopleuron smooth; vein 2-CU1 of fore wing approx. as long as vein 1-CU1 or shorter (Fig. 744 View Figures 744–757 ); vein M+CU of hind wing distinctly longer than vein 1-M (Fig. 745 View Figures 744–757 ); hind tarsal claws with medium-sized dark brown pecten (Fig. 756 View Figures 744–757 ); head black; mesoscutum and scutellum orange brown; fore and middle femora distinctly black or dark brown apically; basal half of hind tibia dark brown; anterior half of mesosoma, 1st and 2nd metasomal tergites yellowish or orange brown; at least basal half of 4th-6th tergites of ♂ with long and dense setosity.
Description.
Holotype, ♂, length of fore wing 5.0 mm, of body 5.8 mm.
Head. Antennal segments of ♂ 50, length of antenna 1.3 × fore wing, its subapical segments rather robust; 4th segment of maxillary palp slender and cylindrical; frons with rather coarse curved rugae and interspaces smooth; OOL 1.1 × diameter of posterior ocellus, coarsely rugose and shiny; coarsely transversely rugose and shiny; clypeus punctate-rugulose; ventral margin of clypeus thick and not protruding forwards (Fig. 753 View Figures 744–757 ); width of hypoclypeal depression 0.4 × minimum width of face (Fig. 751 View Figures 744–757 ); length of eye 3.2 × temple in dorsal view (Fig. 752 View Figures 744–757 ); vertex behind stemmaticum coarsely rugose; clypeus below lower level of eyes; occipital carina complete; length of malar space 0.4 × length of eye in lateral view.
Mesosoma. Mesoscutal lobes finely punctate, shiny, interspaces micro-sculptured; precoxal area of mesopleuron smooth medially except for some crenulations and punctures, its surroundings smooth; scutellum moderately punctate; propodeum rather convex and coarsely reticulate, coarse medio-longitudinal carina present anteriorly, carinae not protruding laterally.
Wings. Fore wing: r 0.7 × 3-SR (Fig. 744 View Figures 744–757 ); 1-CU1 horizontal, as long as 2-CU1; r-m 0.9 × 3-SR; 2nd submarginal cell short (Fig. 744 View Figures 744–757 ); cu-a vertical, largely straight; 1-M nearly straight posteriorly; 1-SR slender; surroundings of M+CU1, 1-M and 1-CU1 setose. Hind wing: marginal cell linearly widened, its apical width 2.2 × width at level of hamuli (Fig. 745 View Figures 744–757 ); 2-SC+R subquadrate; m-cu absent; M+CU:1-M = 15:11; 1r-m 0.7 × 1-M.
Legs. Tarsal claws with medium-sized dark brown pecten (Fig. 756 View Figures 744–757 ); hind coxa largely densely punctate; hind trochantellus medium-sized; length of hind femur and basitarsus 4.0 and 7.0 × their width, respectively; length of inner hind spur 0.5 × hind basitarsus.
Metasoma. First tergite moderately flattened, 0.9 × longer than wide apically; 1st and 2nd tergites with medio-longitudinal carina and densely vermiculate-rugose; medio-basal area of 2nd tergite wide triangular and distinct (Fig. 748 View Figures 744–757 ); 2nd suture deep and moderately crenulate; 3rd tergite finely striate basally, remainder of metasoma largely smooth; 4th without sharp lateral crease; basal half of 4th-6th tergites of ♂ with long and dense setosity.
Colour. Orange brownish; basal half of antenna, palpi largely and parastigma (except base) yellowish brown; head, mesosternum (except anteriorly), mesopleuron (except anteriorly and antero-dorsally), apical 0.4 of hind femur, 3rd tergite (except antero-laterally) and subsequent tergites black; scapus, pedicellus basally, apical half of antenna, apex of fore and middle femora, apex of middle and hind tibiae, hind basitarsus, 2nd hind tarsal segment apically, telotarsi, pterostigma, parastigma basally and veins dark brown; wing membrane subhyaline.
Variation. Vein 1-CU1 of fore wing 1.0-2.3 × vein 2-CU1; maximum width of marginal cell of hind wing 1.6-2.6 × its width near hamuli (Fig. 745 View Figures 744–757 ). Antennal segments: ♀ 46(1), 48(3), 49(1), 50(2), 51(1); ♂ 47(1), 48(2), 49(2), 50(1), 51(1). The sexes have comparable numbers of antennal segments. Apical tergites of ♂ type 4, dense, making the tergites look concave and fringe not observed. Female is very similar to the redescribed male; ovipositor sheath wide, with long setae and apically truncate.
Distribution.
*Bulgaria, Hungary, *Italy, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia (including Dagestan and Far East), Serbia, Ukraine.
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.