Sycophila cecidosiphaga (Brèthes), Brethes

Gates, Michael W., 2014, Nomenclatural Notes on the Eurytomids (Chalcidoidea: Eurytomidae) Described by Jean Brèthes Housed in Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “ Bernardino Rivadavia ”, Zootaxa 3790 (1), pp. 185-193 : 187-188

Sycophila cecidosiphaga (Brèthes)

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C6E504B8-1C5A-4C33-9CC2-C92159F9A57A

Decatoma cecidosiphaga Brèthes 1916b: 417 . Lectotype, male, here designated. Eudecatoma cecidosiphaga ; combination by De Santis and Esquivel 1967: 49.

Eudecatoma cecidosiphaga ; valid species, De Santis 1967: 206.

Sycophila cecidosiphaga ; Eudecatoma synonymized under Sycophila by Bouček (1974). Combination by Noyes (2014).

Type material. The lectotype male is labeled as follows: “ Decatoma cecidophaga [sic] Br., Bs. As. 5-XI.1915, J. B., (Type !!), Sycophila cecidosiphaga (Brèthes) Lectotype male (black dot), Paralectotypes [red]” A total of 30 male, 49 female and 3 unknown paralectotypes are detailed below. The lectotype is co-mounted with five other conspecific specimens (2 males, 2 females, 1 unknown) on a rectangular card. The lectotype is located on the left side of the card when viewed from above, furthest from the pin and nearest a black dot ( Figs. 9, 10 ). It is complete. The specific condition of each co-mounted paralectotype is as follows: head missing (card apex, right); antennae beyond pedicel, wings, metasoma, legs except portions right fore and hind legs. Body coated in glue (card middle, right); antennae beyond scape, left fore tarsus (card base, right); antennae beyond scape, right eye and malar space collapsed (card middle, left); antennae beyond scape (card base, left).

Additional conspecific paralectotypes are mounted singly or in multiples on a pin, but share the collection data indicated by Brèthes (in 1915 in Buenos Aires): (1) One specimen (sex unknown), double mounted and covered in mold. Missing left antenna, left fore leg beyond coxa, left mid leg beyond trochanter, left hind leg, left forewing, metasoma (Bs. Aires, 25.I. 915 [sic], J. B./ Decatoma cecidophaga [sic]); (2) four specimens (2 males, 2 females), each mounted on a separate rectangular card: missing left antenna beyond pedicel and left fore leg beyond femur (top), complete (second and third from top), missing right flagellum beyond F4 (bottom) (Bs. Aires, 9.II.1915, J. B./ Decatoma cecidosiphaga ); (3) nine specimens mounted on a single card (4 males, 5 females): apical row —three appear to be mostly complete but mold is obscuring the head and antennae and the left two are mounted dorsally, middle row —three are mostly complete and the left two are mounted dorsally, basal row —of the three specimens the left one is missing head, right wings and all but left hind leg, the middle one lacks the right antenna beyond scape, and the right one appears mostly complete but is crusted with mold dorsally (B’ Aires, 15.XI.1915, J. B./ Decatoma cecidosiphaga Br ); (4) nine specimens (2 males, 7 females) mounted on two cards: upper card —three appear to be mostly complete, one spot (basal, left) has only glue remaining; lower card —three appear to be mostly complete, arranged on three rows of two (Bs. Aires, 15.XI.1915, J. B./ Decatoma cecidophaga [sic] Brethes). (5) Thirty-three specimens (14 males, 18 females, 1 unknown) arranged on four cards with, from top to bottom, nine, eight, eight, and eight specimens (B. Aires, X.1915, J. B./Parasite de Ridius argentinus/ Decatoma cecidophaga [sic] Br). (6) Eight specimens (4 males, 4 females) on a single card arranged in three rows, two rows of three specimens and one row of two specimens. The specimens are complete (B’ Aires, 30.X.1915, J.B.); (7) Eighteen specimens (8 males, 10 females) arranged on a single card, mostly complete but covered with mold (Bs. Aires, 9.III.1915, J.B.). A single forewing, one antenna, and one flagellum are slide mounted, labeled: “ Decatoma cecidophaga [sic] Brèthes, Type!, B. As, A.M.N.B.A. xxvii.417, -129” handwritten on the left side and a typed “D 1” tag on the upper right ( Fig. 4 ).

Nomenclature and notes. The specific epithet has been misspelled, including by Brèthes himself when labeling specimens. The spelling “ cecidosiphaga ” is what appears in the original publication ( Brèthes 1916b). Upon examination of the type series, this species clearly belongs in Sycophila Walker , based on characters presented by Lotfalizadeh et al. (2007) to define the genus, including bilobed clypeus and swollen, infuscate marginal vein. Brèthes based his description on more than one specimen given that he reports a range for body length measurements, and to conclude the description refers to a collecting date range and three different hosts: Ridiaschina congregatella Brèthes ( Lepidoptera : Heliozelidae ), Cecidoses eremita Curt , and Eucecidoses minutana Brèthes (now Cecidoses minutanus ) ( Lepidoptera : Cecidosidae ). All three hosts are gall-inducers.

Figures

FIGURES 7 – 12. 7, Tetramesa albiangulatus, holotype habitus; 8, Phylloxeroxenus caridei, lectotype habitus; 9, Sycophila cecidosiphaga, lectotype and paralectotype card mount; 10, Sycophila cecidosiphaga, lectotype dorsal habitus; 11, Rileya haumani, dorsal habitus; 12, Sycophila paranensis, holotype dorsal habitus.

FIGURES 1 – 6. 1, Tetramesa albiangulatus, right wings and antenna; 2, Phylloxeroxenus caridei, paralectotype antenna; 3, Eurytoma geniculata, holotype fore wing, hind wing, and antenna; 4, Sycophila cecidosiphaga, paralectotype forewing, antenna, and flagellum; 5, Proseurytoma parodii, paralectotype male and female antenna; 6, Aximopsis vulgata, holotype left antenna.