Cecinothofagus Nieves-Aldrey & Liljeblad

Nieves-Aldrey, José Luis, Liljeblad, Johan, Nieves, María Hernández, Grez, Audrey & Nylander, Johan A. A., 2009, Revision and phylogenetics of the genus Paraulax Kieffer (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae) with biological notes and description of a new tribe, a new genus, and five new species, Zootaxa 2200, pp. 1-40 : 18-19

Cecinothofagus Nieves-Aldrey & Liljeblad , gen. n.

Type species: Cecinothofagus gallaelenga Nieves-Aldrey & Liljeblad , new species, by present designation

Etymology. An abbreviation alluding to the particle Ceci - (meaning cecidium or gall) and the name of the host plant genus Nothofagus (the southern beeches).

Diagnosis. Differs from Paraulax by the following:

Distinct median vertical carina extending from ventral margin of clypeus to nearly reaching ventral margin of antennal sockets ( Figs. 6 A & 8A). Facial strigae radiating from lateral clypeus, laterally only reaching ventral margin of compound eye. Ventral part of clypeus straight, not projecting over mandibles ( Fig. 6 A). Lateral, sharp occipital carina present. Last antennal flagellomere 1.5 to 1.7 times longer than wide ( Fig. 6 E). F3 of male antenna not modified ( Fig. 6 F).

Longitudinal costulae running from lateral margin of pronotal plate to lateral surface of pronotum: absent or very short ( Fig. 7 A). Notauli sinuate, relatively wider posteriorly, not strongly converging ( Fig. 6 D); distance between notauli at transcutal fissure>0.5 times separation at anterior margin of mesoscutum. Scutellar foveae absent ( Fig. 6 D); scutellum with rugulose-rugose sculpture present marginally but more or less erased in median area. Area above mesopleural impression smooth or weakly coriaceous, usually without longitudinal striae ( Figs. 7 A & 9B). Metascutellum narrower than a metanotal trough in middle. Claws simple, sometimes with a blunt, short basal lobe or with an acute, small lobe measuring less than 1/6 times length of apical tooth ( Fig. 9 D). 3tg of medium size, 0.3–0.5 times length of metasoma. Lateral pubescence on T2 dense. Length of projecting part of hypopygial spine (beyond attachment of lateral flap) <3 times height.

Description. Head. Slightly pubescent; some long, scattered setae on upper frons, vertex and face; some setae also dorsally on occiput, along oral fossa and gena. Gena not expanded behind compound eye. A vertical median carina present ( Figs. 6 A & 8A); facial strigae radiating from clypeus extending laterally, reaching ventral margin of eye; almost absent in median area. Upper face (frons) and vertex usually shining, with delicate, coriaceous sculpture. Clypeus indistinct, ventral margin straight, not projecting over mandibles ( Fig.8 A). Subocular impression present, not well marked. 5–7 regular vertical carinae present ventrolaterally on gena ( Fig. 6 H). Anterior tentorial pits visible; epistomal sulcus and clypeo-pleurostomal lines indistinct. Occiput without dorsal occipital carina; genal carina present ( Fig. 6 B). Hypostomal sulci meeting slightly before hypostoma.

Antenna. Female: 12 segments ( Fig. 6 E); flagellum broadening towards apex; with relatively long, erect setae and placodeal sensilla visible only on flagellar segments F7–F10. Ultimate flagellomere broader than penultimate; more or less spindled-shaped, with a rounded end. Male: 15 segments ( Fig. 6 F). Flagellum not broadening towards apex. F1 cylindrical, F2, and usually also F3, excavated and curved in basal third ( Figs. 6 G & 8D) sometimes apically expanding ( Fig. 4 I). Placodeal sensillae present on all flagellomeres.

Pronotum. Pronotal plate distinct ( Fig. 6 C, 8G), usually without sculpture; dorsal part distinctly set off, anterolateral margin marked and moderately projecting laterad. Admedian pronotal depressions widely separated. Lateral surface of pronotum coriaceous, withouth longitudinal rugae ( Figs. 7 A & 8B).

Mesoscutum almost entirely smooth and shining or with delicate or weak coriaceous sculpture, more marked on lateral lobe ( Fig. 8 A). Some long setae scattered along notauli. Median mesoscutal impression absent ( Fig. 6 D). Notauli percurrent, well separated posteriorly; sometimes ending before transscutal fissure. Anteroadmedian signa visible. Transscutal fissure narrow. Scutellar foveae indistinct, visible only as shallow, usually smooth depression ( Fig. 6 D). Scutellum in dorsal view with weak rugae. Posterodorsal and posterior margins of axillula distinct. Mesopleuron beneath mesopleural triangle with marked, longitudinal mesopleural impression, usually incomplete, not reaching margin of mesopleural triangle ( Fig. 7 A). Area surrounding mesopleural impression almost entirely smooth, withouth visible sculpture. Metascutellum distinctly constricted medially.

Metapectal-propodeal complex. Metapleural sulcus ( Fig. 7 A) meeting posterior margin of mesopectus at about mid height of metapectal-propodeal complex. Lateral propodeal carinae narrow, parallel. Lateral and median propodeal areas smooth, pubescent ( Fig. 7 B). Nucha dorsally with some irregular longitudinal rugae.

Legs. Profemur with ventral swelling in basal third, with 4–5 rows of sharp, closely spaced, deep costulae ( Fig. 7 C). Metatarsal claw simple; sometimes with blunt, short basal lobe or with acute, small lobe less than 1/ 6 of length of apical tooth ( Fig. 9 D).

Forewing. Radial cell closed along anterior margin ( Figs. 7 F & 8H); R1 not or only slightly depigmented along radial cell; areolet absent; vein Rs+M and M weak but visible, directed towards lower half of median vein. Fringe of long setae along apical margin of wing.

Female metasoma laterally compressed ( Fig. 7 D). Abdominal petiole dorsally smooth, ventrally with deep, longitudinal grooves, about as long as high. T2 smooth and shining, covering about 2/3 of metasoma; anteromedian area of T2 with group of long setae. Projecting part of hypopygial spine about 2–3 times longer than high; apical pubescence of hypopigial spine projecting beyond apex, subapical setae longer than apical ones, together forming a small tuft ( Figs. 7 D & 9E).

Figures

FIGURE 4. Paraulax queulensis n. sp. and Cecinothofagus ibarrai n. sp.: (A – H) P. queulensis: (A) Habitus lateral view. (B) Head and mesosoma lateral view. (C) Mesosoma dorsal view. (D) Metatarsal claw. (E) Ventral spine of hypopygium. (F) Female antennae. (G) Male antenna. (H) Forewing. (I – K) Cecinothofagus ibarrai. (I) Male antenna. (J) Mesosoma dorsal view. (K) Forewing.

FIGURE 6. Cecinothofagus gallaecoihue n. sp.: (A) Head anterior view. (B) Head posterior view. (C) Pronotum anterior view. (D) Mesosoma dorsal view. (E) Female antenna. (F) Male antenna and (G) detail of basal flagellomeres. (H) Head lateral view showing vertical carinae on gena.

FIGURE 7. Cecinothofagus gallaecoihue n. sp.: (A) Mesosoma lateral view. (B) Propodeum. (C) Foreleg. (D) Female metasoma lateral view. (E) Male metasoma. (F) Forewing.

FIGURE 8. Cecinothofagus gallaelenga n. sp.: (A) Head anterior view. (B) Female antenna and (C) detail of apical flagellomeres. (D) Male antenna. (F) Head posterior view. (G) Pronotum anterior view. (H) Forewing.

FIGURE 9. Cecinothofagus gallaelenga n. sp.: (A) Mesosoma dorsal view. (B) Mesosoma lateral view. (C) Propodeum (D) Metatarsal claw. (E) Female metasoma lateral view. (F) Male metasoma.