Macreupelmus Ashmead,

Gibson, Gary A. P., 2016, Revision of the Neotropical genus Macreupelmus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eupelmidae), Zootaxa 4161 (1), pp. 81-115: 83-86

publication ID

http://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4161.1.3

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:5BBA7F64-D281-4CB0-B78C-CD1276452290

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/C96087FF-A668-5B5B-5BE4-FD1C95EDF420

treatment provided by

Plazi

scientific name

Macreupelmus Ashmead
status

 

Macreupelmus Ashmead 

Macreupelmus Ashmead, 1896: 7  (key), 14 (description). Type species: Macreupelmus brasiliensis Ashmead  , by monotypy and original designation.

Description. FEMALE. Body comparatively large, about 4–6 mm in length excluding strongly exerted ovipositor sheaths; mostly dark with variably extensive green, blue, purple and/or reddish-violaceous lusters, excluding legs (e.g. Figs 6, 7View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 15View FIGURES 15 – 23, 24View FIGURES 24 – 33). Head in lateral view meniscoidal to low-subtriangular with lower face abruptly angled to longer, low-convex to flat frontovertex, and anterior and posterior surfaces converging dorsally to narrowly rounded vertex (e.g. Figs 29View FIGURES 24 – 33, 40View FIGURES 34 – 41, 112View FIGURES 106 – 115); scrobes bare but otherwise entirely setose with white setae on anterior and lateral surfaces and at least some dark setae on vertex, the setae on lower face, interantennal prominence and parascrobal region slightly lanceolate and therefore more conspicuous compared to more hairlike setae on frontovertex (e.g. Figs 8View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 20View FIGURES 15 – 23, 36, 37View FIGURES 34 – 41); scrobal depression reticulate to reticulate-rugulose and comparatively deep ventrally near torulus, with abrupt but rounded parascrobal margin near torulus and depression shallowed dorsally to indistinctly indicated dorsal margin separated from anterior ocellus (e.g. Figs 8View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 20View FIGURES 15 – 23, 36, 37View FIGURES 34 – 41); parascrobal region with inner margin sinuately recurved toward inner orbit beside torulus such that lower parascrobal region broader ventrally than at level of inner orbit above level of interantennal prominence and in frontal view scrobal depression bell-shaped (e.g. Figs 8View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 20View FIGURES 15 – 23, 36View FIGURES 34 – 41); frons with variably distinct and elongate sulcus between anterior ocellus and scrobal depression (e.g. Figs 25View FIGURES 24 – 33, 38View FIGURES 34 – 41, 57View FIGURES 52 – 62); OOL obviously less than MPOD. Eyes densely setose (e.g. Figs 8View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 20View FIGURES 15 – 23, 36View FIGURES 34 – 41). Mandibles bidentate with small, acute ventroapical tooth and broad, truncate to slightly incurved dorsoapical margin ( Figs 88View FIGURES 87 – 95, 101, 102View FIGURES 96 – 105). Antenna clavate with scape variably extensively pale apically and/or clava partly to entirely pale, but pedicel and funicle dark (e.g. Figs 21View FIGURES 15 – 23, 29View FIGURES 24 – 33, 74View FIGURES 72 – 80); scape robust-subcylindrical to distinctly compressed-rectangular; fl1 (anellus) at least as long as wide and slightly shorter than pedicel, and fl2–fl4 all distinctly longer than quadrate to transverse fl5–fl8; pedicel and basal 4–6 flagellomeres with whitish seta dorsally under at least some angles of light (e.g. Figs 21View FIGURES 15 – 23, 29View FIGURES 24 – 33, 112View FIGURES 106 – 115); and fl4 to clava with inconspicuous multiporous plate sensilla in two or more rows.

Prothorax with longer, dense black setae dorsally on pronotum ( Fig. 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: prn), on propleuron ( Fig. 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: ppl), prosternum ( Fig. 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: pst), procoxa and posterior surface of profemur ( Fig. 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: pfm); pronotum divided medially, collar in dorsal view linear medially and transverse-triangular or lunate laterally (e.g. Figs 42View FIGURES 42 – 51, 80View FIGURES 72 – 80), and in lateral view neck abruptly inclined to collar (e.g. Figs 6View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 112View FIGURES 106 – 115). Mesonotum (e.g. Figs 42View FIGURES 42 – 51, 80View FIGURES 72 – 80) reticulate-punctate to longitudinally reticulate-strigose; mesoscutum depressed posteromedially behind low-convex, triangular anteromedial lobe and between low-convex lateral lobes; lateral lobes carinate posteriorly and mesoscutum often also variably distinctly carinate mediolongitudinally from apex of anteromedial lobe partly through posteromedial depressed region; mesoscutum with white to dark setae mesally but setae white at least along lateral and posterior margins; scutellar-axillar complex with dark setae on axillae and at least anteriorly on scutellum. Prepectus with lateral surface coarsely reticulate and densely setose with dark hairlike setae (e.g. Figs 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2, 79View FIGURES 72 – 80), and vertically subdivided by differentiated line of thinner cuticle (flexion line) within about basal third to half ( Fig. 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: pfl). Mesopectus with white setae ventrally between acropleural sulci and on acropleuron anteriorly; acropleuron reticulate-rugose with region of minute sculpture mesally. Macropterous; fore wing entirely setose except sometimes costal cell bare dorsally; basal cell hyaline or sometimes infuscate basally, but with dark hairlike setae; disc infuscate from base of parastigma to level about equal with apex of postmarginal vein, with dark lanceolate setae to about level of apex of stigmal vein anterior to medial fold and more hairlike dark setae apically and usually posteriorly, but with posterobasally directed hyaline region with white hairlike setae behind marginal vein ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 1), often more or less hyaline region with white or dark setae along posterior margin of wing opposite anterior hyaline region ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 2), and sometimes with slender hyaline region with white setae extending from submarginal vein near base of parastigma along basal fold and mediocubital fold basally ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 3) or sometimes only on mediocubital fold and/or membrane distal to basal cell ( Figs 45View FIGURES 42 – 51, 54View FIGURES 52 – 62). Legs mostly dark brown to orangish, but middle leg with femur apically and trochantellus often mostly white or at least paler than rest of femur (trochantellus dark at least ventrobasally, e.g. Figs 10View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 104View FIGURES 96 – 105), and hind leg with apex of coxa, trochanter and trochantellus white, and femur dorsoapically and tibia basally paler or white (e.g. Figs 14View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2, 27View FIGURES 24 – 33, 59View FIGURES 52 – 62); mesofemur with posterior surface setose only within about apical half (e.g. Figs 28View FIGURES 24 – 33, 50View FIGURES 42 – 51) or additionally with region of longer setae submesally (e.g. Figs 60View FIGURES 52 – 62, 83View FIGURES 81 – 86, 91View FIGURES 87 – 95); mesotibia with oblique groove apically between tibial spur and base of tarsus and with row ( Figs 32View FIGURES 24 – 33, 61View FIGURES 52 – 62, 84View FIGURES 81 – 86, 111View FIGURES 106 – 115) or patch ( Figs 22View FIGURES 15 – 23, 48View FIGURES 42 – 51, 100View FIGURES 96 – 105) of apical pegs in region over base of tibial spur; mesotibial spur dark to orangish but not white; mesotarsus concolorous with tibia and with single row of dark pegs on either side of basal four tarsomeres. Propodeum with callus elongate-rectangular, low-convex, and entirely setose with white setae (e.g. Figs 41View FIGURES 34 – 41, 58View FIGURES 52 – 62); plical region variably long, with panels sculptured medially (e.g. Figs 26View FIGURES 24 – 33, 41View FIGURES 34 – 41, 58View FIGURES 52 – 62, 94View FIGURES 87 – 95, 114View FIGURES 106 – 115). Gaster (e.g. Figs 47View FIGURES 42 – 51, 62View FIGURES 52 – 62) lanceolate with sides diverging to about level of cerci; dark except for yellowish to hyaline syntergal flange, the basal terga dorsally mostly dark brown but at least penultimate tergum and sometimes apical three terga variably distinctly green to blue or purple, and other terga often with some metallic luster laterally; Gt1–Gt3 or Gt4 distinctly emarginate ( Figs 47View FIGURES 42 – 51, 62View FIGURES 52 – 62) and comparatively weakly sculptured, meshlike coriaceous to at most inconspicuously and very shallowly reticulate, Gt5 usually more distinctly meshlike reticulate, but Gt6 reticulate or reticulate-rugose (e.g. Figs 23View FIGURES 15 – 23, 56View FIGURES 52 – 62, 70View FIGURES 63 – 71) to granular ( Figs 86View FIGURES 81 – 86, 95View FIGURES 87 – 95); hypopygium on either side with elongate-oval, dense patch of white setae forming reflective surface (e.g. Fig. 14View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2); syntergum with syntergal flange, the flange longer than wide and of similar length or longer than syntergal surface anterior to flange. Ovipositor sheaths extending for distance equal to about one-third to one-half length of gaster, usually mostly yellow but at least paler than gaster and with variably darker brown region subapically (e.g. Figs 6View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 15View FIGURES 15 – 23, 24View FIGURES 24 – 33).

MALE. Unknown.

Biology. Hosts are unknown for any species although individuals are possibly parasitoids of insect eggs because species of Anastatus Motschulsky  , Mesocomys Cameron  , and Oozetetes  have similarly structured bidentate mandibles and are known egg parasitoids. However, most species of Zaischnopsis Ashmead  have tridentate mandibles and at least some are indicated also as egg parasitoids ( Gibson 2005).

Recognition and relationships. Females of Macreupelmus  uniquely possess an oblong region of dense, slightly lanceolate white setae that form a reflective patch on either side of the hypopygium ( Fig. 14View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2). Although this differentiates females from those of all other eupelmine genera, females of other genera can have the hypopygium variably densely setose (e.g. Fig. 12View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2). Consequently, it is not the presence or absence of setae but simply the relative density that is autapomorphic. Some Zaischnopsis  females have similar though obviously less densely setose hypopygial regions ( Fig. 12View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2) in addition to very similar color patterns of the fore wings (cf. Figs 4, 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5), legs (cf. Figs 1, 6View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5), and other body parts, including similarly long, yellowish ovipositor sheaths relative to a generally dark body (cf. Figs 1, 2View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5 with 6, 7), plus otherwise variably similar structures and sculptural and setal patterns (cf. Figs 1–3View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5 with 6–8). Such females closely resemble those of Macreupelmus  , but in addition to the hypopygial setal difference they have tridentate mandibles (cf. Figs 3View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5, 88View FIGURES 87 – 95), white setae on at least the propleuron and prosternum (cf. Figs 11, 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2: ppl, pst), the posterior surface of the mesofemur completely setose (cf. Figs 5, 10View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5), the prepectus bare (cf. Figs 11, 13View FIGURES 11 – 14. 11 & 1 2), and a different scrobal depression structure in which the inner margin is evenly directed to the inner orbit rather than sinuately emarginate along the inner orbit so that the depression is ∩-shaped ( Fig. 3View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5; Gibson 1995, figs 67–72) rather than bell-shaped ( Fig. 8View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5; Gibson 1995, figs 27, 28).

Gibson (1995) noted the similarities between Macreupelmus  and some Zaischnopsis  females, but hypothesized that Macreupelmus  formed a monophyletic group with nine other genera ( Gibson 1995, fig. 520), including Anastatus  , based on common possession of similarly structured bidentate mandibles ( Gibson 1995, character 1, state 2a). However, after examining species from around the world, Gibson (1995) noted that females of some species of Zaischnopsis  intergrade morphologically with those of Anastatus  , whereas others intergrade with those of Brasema Cameron. He  thus hypothesized that the three genera could represent grades of structure and that Zaischnopsis  could be rendered paraphyletic by Anastatus  ( Gibson 1995, figs 515, 518) or by both Anastatus  and Brasema  ( Gibson 1995, fig. 518). Likewise, the similarity between Macreupelmus  and some Zaischnopsis  females could indicate that Macreupelmus  represents nothing more than a relatively small, monophyletic group of Neotropical species that are united by a few conspicuous secondary modifications, but which renders the much more speciose and cosmopolitan genus Zaischnopsis  paraphyletic. If species are egg parasitoids their bidentate mandibular structure might have evolved for functional reasons independently of similarly structured mandibles in other genera that are mostly egg parasitoids. Although males of Macreupelmus  remain unrecognized, they likely are similar to females in having bidentate mandibles and thus may remain unrecognized within Anastatus  if they possess similar flagellar structures as for Anastatus  males ( Gibson 1995). The absence of any species being reared to date at least indicates species are not parasitoids of economically important or commonly reared taxa.

Species differentiation. The recognized species of Macreupelmus  are differentiated primarily by different combinations of the following features: propodeal plical region medially short (e.g. Figs 26View FIGURES 24 – 33, 58View FIGURES 52 – 62) to long (e.g. Figs 19View FIGURES 15 – 23, 41View FIGURES 34 – 41); Gt6 (penultimate gastral tergum) granular ( Figs 86View FIGURES 81 – 86, 95View FIGURES 87 – 95) or variably coarsely and distinctly reticulate to reticulate-imbricate (e.g. Figs 23View FIGURES 15 – 23, 56View FIGURES 52 – 62); mesotibial apical pegs arranged in row ( Figs 32View FIGURES 24 – 33, 61View FIGURES 52 – 62, 84View FIGURES 81 – 86, 111View FIGURES 106 – 115) or patch ( Figs 22View FIGURES 15 – 23, 48View FIGURES 42 – 51, 100View FIGURES 96 – 105); leg color patterns; and presence or absence of different regions of white setae on the fore wing in addition to the large hyaline region behind the marginal vein ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 1), including a slender hyaline region extending from the submarginal vein near the parastigma along the basal and mediocubital folds ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 3) or only along the mediocubital fold and/or disc anterior to the mediocubital fold distal to the basal cell ( Figs 45View FIGURES 42 – 51, 54View FIGURES 52 – 62), and a more or less hyaline region with white or dark setae along the posterior margin of the wing opposite of the anterior hyaline region ( Fig. 9View FIGURES 1 – 10. 1 – 5: 2).

Kingdom

Animalia

Phylum

Arthropoda

Class

Insecta

Order

Hymenoptera

Family

Eupelmidae

Loc

Macreupelmus Ashmead

Gibson, Gary A. P. 2016
2016
Loc

Macreupelmus

Ashmead 1896: 7