Foenatopus hesperophagus Aguiar
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.199692 |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5696836 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03CA8784-FF5E-C92A-FF72-6177FE84FAB0 |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Foenatopus hesperophagus Aguiar |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Foenatopus hesperophagus Aguiar , sp. nov.
( Figs 1 View FIGURE 1 [hs], 20–34)
Description. Holotype FEMALE. Length 6.77 mm. Biometric ratios as in Table 1 View TABLE 1 and Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 [hs].
Head ( Figs 20–22 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) globular, of regular shape. [Flagellomeres missing]. Frons finely transversely striate, with distinct striae assembled in a series of 8–10 units; faintly microreticulate between striation; frontal carina distinct, complete, not stronger than striation. Coronal area approximately irregularly striate, texture between macrosculpture mostly polished but with indication of microreticulation; posterior pair of tubercles distinct, isolated from each other. Vertex anteriorly, behind posterior pair of tubercles, with strong, transverse, arched carina, followed by a shorter, similar carina, both connected on the left side; space between them polished, smooth; post-vertex centrally widely taken by partially concentric strigate pattern, which is more restricted to medial part posteriorly, extending posteriorly to almost reach occipital carina medially; temples widely and conspicuously microreticulate, this pattern also advancing a little anteriorly, between strigation; dorso-longitudinal impression inconspicuous, visible only with tangent illumination, restricted to approximately posterior 0.6 of post-vertex. Gena apparently polished, smooth, but faintly alutaceous; uniformly round. Occipital carina a narrow, sharp rim, overall shape approximately circular, ventrally ending, far from hypostomal carina. Postgenal bridge shallow, conspicuously alutaceous, occipital foramen shallow.
Mesosoma . Subcylindrical, maximum dorsal width 1.15 times maximum lateral height. Prosternum strongly micro-areolate, apex emarginated as a “V.” Pronotum ( Figs 23, 25 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) entirely micro-areolate; anterior margin reflected upwards at about 90 degrees, emarginated as a “U”, slightly deeper than anteriorly wide; colo flat, distinctly transversely strigate; a subtle step from colo to preannular indicates vestiges of pronotal fold; preannular in dorsal view uniform, regular; pronotum in lateral view shows all the following subtly but recognizably: anterior carinae, pronotal fold, limit between preannular and semiannular; femoral impression absent; posterior angle of pronotum, including pronotal lobe, with a few sharp longitudinal carinae. Mesoscutum ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) transverse, coarsely rugose; notauli apparently indicated by two rugosities; median sulcus weakly indicated, visible with tangent illumination only. Axilla ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) conspicuously alutaceous. Scutellum ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) conspicuously alutaceous, lateral corners rugose. Mesepisternum ( Fig. 28 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) anterior half with horizontally decumbent short pilosity; posterior half glabrous or nearly so; sculpturing rugulose and micro-areolate, except postero-ventrally micro-areolate only; dorso-posterior margin glabrous, polished. Mesopseudosternum weakly concave, alutaceous; discrimen crenulate, progressing from larger units posteriorly to narrow and shallow anteriorly, linear at apex. Propodeum ( Fig. 29 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) changing from anteriorly coarsely microreticulate/alutaceous to posteriorly areolate-rugose; spiracular groove and respective carina indicated, but subtle, parapetiolar depression, anterior and posterior spiracular plates, weakly differentiated. Metapleuron areolate-rugose. Pleuropropodeal and postfoveolar foveae differentiated but hard to distinguish from deeply crenulate interfoveolar area; postfoveolar area with vertical rugosity, contiguous with metapleural macrosculpture. Hind coxa dorso-laterally flattened, this area with fine microsculpturing; coxa otherwise distinctly transversely strigate; hind femur ( Fig. 26 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) entirely micro-areolate (pentagonal and hexagonal units), apically slightly coarser; ventrally near basal 0.3 with wide, low, triangular tooth; central tooth wide, triangular, apical tooth quite similar in shape to central tooth, but smaller in size; three small tubercles between largest teeth, about six more beyond apical tooth; all teeth and tubercle apex bearing single short hair or seta each; those of apical tubercles straight, stiff, whitish. Hind tibia ( Figs 26, 27 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ) compressed part microreticulate, dilated part varying from basally longitudinally alutaceous to apically microreticulate; compressed part ventrally with two strictly parallel, longitudinal carinae or edges, reaching dilated part, where both give place to oblique strigation; dilated part in posterior view with deep mesal compression, producing distinct, oblique border ( Fig. 27 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ); mesal tibial spur slightly longer than lateral spur.
Wings. Fore wing ( Fig. 30 View FIGURES 20 – 31 ). Venation beyond cells R and 1Cu chiefly spectral or absent; vein 1Cu tubular on its basal 0.9 approximately; crossvein 2r fully tubular, followed by a short, stubby section, then by vein 4Rs, which disappears a little beyond middle of wing; vein M+Cu apically with three widely spaced setae; vein 1M seamlessly fused with 1Rs, straight; crossvein 1cu-a opposite to vein 1M; vein 1-1A with two widely spaced, short, translucent, sub-basal setae, its apex distinctly bent anteriorly towards apex of 1cu-a; vein 2-1A absent. Hind wing with vein Sc+R fully tubular; other veins indistinct.
Metasoma. Petiole transversely strigate, somewhat coarse basally to fine apically; pair of small tubercles at about midlength, laterally, as vestiges of the petiolar spiracles; T3 weakly longitudinally alutaceous; T4–6 very finely and densely transversely aciculate, T7–8 weakly transversely alutaceous, T9 conspicuously microreticulate. Pygidium convex, moderately wide, posterior margin straight; pygidial impression deep, V-shaped.
Color. Brown to light brown, with dark brown mesothorax, and dark reddish brown metathorax and propodeum. Scape and pedicel light brown; [flagellomeres missing]. [Fore legs missing]; mid tibia basal 0.2 and respective basitarsus pale yellow; basal, central and apical teeth of hind femur nearly translucent, yellowish; legs otherwise brown, with little tone variation. T4 with two large, nearly circular, pale yellow spots, separated from each other by about half their own diameter. Ovipositor sheath basally brown to apically dark brown; ovipositor copper-colored. Wings hyaline, veins brown, pterostigma basally whitish.
MALE. ( Figs 32–34 View FIGURES 32 – 34 ) Length 8.87 mm. Biometric ratios as in Table 1 View TABLE 1 and Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 [hs]. [Flagellum missing beyond flagellomere 4]. Similar to female, but generally darker, colors more intensely contrasting: dorso-posterior margin of pronotum yellowish or golden, contrasting with brown remainder; apex of hind coxa, hind femur, petiole, golden yellow; compressed part of hind tibia, and tarsus, fully light reddish brown, contrasting with dark brown dilated part; central and posterior teeth of hind femur yellowish or whitish. Flagellomeres 1–3 without tyloids; flagellomere 4 with 4 small tyloids apically [remainder of antenna missing]. Occipital carina apically faint but developed, reaching hypostomal carina. Anterior tibia with with longitudinal whitish stripe on anterior face (possibly also present in some females, as is the case with other stephanid species). In one specimen, vein 1Cu entirely tubular, and with a distinct, spectral, ventral branch of vein 4Rs.
Petiole long and slender, about twice the length of alinotum (vs. 1.45 and thick, for the female of F. bisignatus ). The following features are useful to separate males of this species from both its female and from F. bisignatus males: occipital carina apically weak but distinct, reaching beyond level of hypostomal carina (vs. absent in females of F. hesperophagus and males of F. bisignatus ); mesothorax and propodeum rather black (vs. brown to reddish brown); preannular swollen ( Fig. 32 View FIGURES 32 – 34 ) (vs. regularly conical, similar to Fig. 49 View FIGURES 47 – 54 ); base of 2r with 4Rs showing vestiges of bifurcation (vs. no vestiges).
Discussion. Most similar to F. prousti and F. crispus , from which it can be separated by having the head and mesosoma not compressed (vs. head compressed in both, and body compressed in F. prousti ); by lacking the distinct microreticulate sculpturing on frons and coronal area; post-vertex sculpturing weak or delicate (vs. coarse); gena nearly polished smooth (vs. conspicuously alutaceous); hypostomal bridge shallow (vs. deep towards occipital foramen). The anterior margin of colo (pronotum) is distinctly reflected upwards (vs. a sharp border or only a narrow, linear rim) [this might be related to body compression, possibly not representing a true character per se; however, the sculpturing and structure of the colo is characteristic for all these species, and the respective descriptions must be checked for details]. Interfoveolar area deeply crenulate (vs. polished, smooth). Vein 1-1A bent upwards towards apex of 1cu-a, thus 2-1A truly absent (vs. straight, 2-1A spectral); about 90% of vein 1Cu tubular (vs. 40–50%).
Also somewhat similar to F. turcomanorum (see Discussion for that species) and quite similar to F. bisignatus , from which it can be separated by the following features. Frons mostly transverse rugose, the rugosities somewhat sparse (vs. dense, with dorsal half areolate-rugose in F. bisignatus ); rugosity on coronal area not or indistinctly radial (vs. distinctly radial); vertex with distinct centro-longitudinal impression (vs. absent), sculpturing different ( Figs 21–22 View FIGURES 20 – 31 vs. Fig. 48 View FIGURES 47 – 54 ); mesoscutum sculpture stout, sparse (vs. extensively areolate-rugose); axilla strongly alutaceous (vs. regularly alutaceous and with foveolae); scutellum strongly alutaceous (vs. weakly alutaceous), central area without foveolae or foveolae inconspicuous (vs. with distinct foveolae), laterally with about six deep foveolae aligned submarginally (vs. wide, shallow areolae or weakly concave); mesopleuron and metapleuron sculpturing strong (vs. delicate), mesopleuron dorso-posteriorly rugose and with transverse carinae (vs. alutaceous); fore wing vein 1cu-a ending nearly or definitely opposite origin of vein 1M (vs. distinctly apicad); propodeum changing from anteriorly strongly microreticulate to posteriorly strongly areolate-rugose (vs. anteriorly finely alutaceous to posteriorly densely rugose, in a more heterogeneous pattern), posterior half with large areolae (vs. small); central tooth of hind femur triangular (vs. lanceolate). In spite of the high similarity of their females, the males of F. hesperophagus and F. bisignatus also differ in other important features (see above), providing strong evidence to support the separation of these species.
Material examined. Three specimens. HOLOTYPE Ψ ( UFES) TURKEY: Buharkent (37º57’00”N 28º45’00”E), 30.III.2001, Tülin Akşit leg. Triangle mounted; both flagellomeres, both anterior legs, left median leg, tarsus of right median leg, hind tibia and tarsus, and left ovipositor sheath missing; otherwise well preserved. PARATYPES ( UFES and AMUC): 2 ɗ, Erbeyli village, İncirliova county (37º51’08”N 27º43’25”E), Aydın, 27.IX.2000; Tülin Akşit leg. Triangle mounted. All specimens above emerged from Hesperophanes griseus (Fabricius) ( Coleoptera , Cerambycidae ) from branches of Ficus carica cv. Calimyrna L.
The following six specimens were also reared by Dr. Akşit from the same host and plant host, but were not examined for this study: Aydın-Bozdoġan, 11.VII.2000 (2 specimens), 30.III.2001, 04.V.2001; Aydın-Buharkent, 30.III.2001, 25.V.2005.
Distribution. Southwestern Turkey.
Host record. Reared from immatures of Hesperophanes griseus (Fabricius) ( Coleoptera , Cerambycidae ) from branches of Ficus carica cv. Calimyrna L.
Etymology. A reference to the genus of the host, combined with a suffix derived from the Greek phagein, meaning to eat.
| UFES |
Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo |
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.