Erythraeus (Erythraeus) hubeiensis, Xu & Yi & Guo & Jin, 2019
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4647.1.7 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E110C814-7D90-4E82-A2CA-CABE420F33E8 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03D0CF78-FF84-FFC1-FF55-FE10FDF17933 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Erythraeus (Erythraeus) hubeiensis |
status |
sp. nov. |
Erythraeus (Erythraeus) hubeiensis sp. nov.
( Figs. 1–11 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3–5 View FIGURES 6–7 View FIGURES 8–9 View FIGURES 10–11 )
Diagnosis (larva). fnBFe = 2-2-2; Ta I 176–180; Ti I 289–306; Ta III 161–176; Ti III 393–415; fD 35–38.
Description (n = 10; holotype, 9 paratypes). Dorsum. Idiosoma with 37 (fD = 35–38 in paratypes) barbed setae and with blunted ends. Two pairs of eyes without platelets placed on each side ( Fig. 1 View FIGURE 1 ). Scutum sub-rounded or oval, wider than long, anterior margin straight, posterior margin slightly convex. Scutum with two pairs of normal setae (AL and PL) and two pairs of trichobothria (ASE and PSE), scutalae barbed and with pointed ends, AL ˃ PL, PW ˃ AW ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). Two pairs of trichobothria (ASE and PSE) with minute barbs in distal half. ASE slightly behind AL bases, PSE bases far from bases of PL and close to posterior edge of scutum ( Figs. 1 View FIGURE 1 , 3 View FIGURE 3–5 ).
Venter. All ventral setae including coxalae with pointed tips. One pair of nude sternalae 1a, one pair of barbed sternalae 3a, 1a ˃ 3a in length ( Table 1 View TABLE 1 ) and eight pairs of barbed setae behind coxae III (fV = 16–18). Coxal setae barbed, coxalae 1b longer than 2b and 3b, and 3b slightly longer than 2b ( Fig. 2 View FIGURE 2 , Table 1 View TABLE 1 ). NDV = 52–54.
Gnathosoma with one pair of nude galealae (cs), two pairs of nude hypostomalae (as and bs) ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 3–5 ); bs (37–45) much longer than as (9–15), hypostomal lip fimbriate. Dorsum of palpfemur and palpgenu each with one barbed and pointed setae, palptibia with one nude seta and one barbed seta on venter, one barbed seta on dorsum, odontus bifid ( Fig. 4 View FIGURE 3–5 ). Palptarsus with eight setae including two barbed setae, four nude setae, one solenidion (ω), one eu- pathidium (ζ), and one Cp ( Figs. 4, 5 View FIGURE 3–5 ), fPp = 0-B-B-BBN 2 -BBNNNNωζCp ( Fig. 5 View FIGURE 3–5 ). Palpal supracoxal seta (elcp) peg like.
Leg ( Figs. 6–11 View FIGURES 6–7 View FIGURES 8–9 View FIGURES 10–11 ) with seven segments (femora divided). IP = 3239–3401 (Holotype and nine paratypes). Pedal basifemur I with one nude and pointed tip seta ( Fig. 6 View FIGURES 6–7 ), other setae on legs barbed and pointed. Leg setae formula: Leg I: Cx—1n; Tr—1n; BFe—2n (B, N); TFe—5n; Ge—1σ, 1κ, 8n; Ti—2φ, 1κ, 1Cp, 14n; Ta—1ω, 1ε, 2ζ, 26n. Leg II: Cx—1n; Tr—1n; BFe—2n; TFe—5n; Ge—1κ, 8n; Ti—2φ, 15n; Ta—1ω, 2ζ, 23n. Leg III: Cx—1n; Tr—1n; BFe—2n; TFe—5n; Ge—8n; Ti—1φ, 15n; Ta—1ζ, 24n.
Etymology. The name of the new species is derived from the province where it was collected.
Type material. Holotype: larva ex nymph of unidentified species in Typhlocybini ( Cicadellidae : Typhlocybinae ), mite parasitic on head, collector SI-YUAN XU, 11 August 2015, Qizimeishan National Natural Reserve , Hubei Province, China . Paratypes: 5 larvae ex plants, one larva ex unidentified species of Aphididae , mite attached to pronotum, same data as the holotype ; 3 larvae ex nymph of unidentified species in Typhlocybini , mites parasit- izing head, mesothorax and end of abdomen, collector SI-YUAN XU, 17 August 2015, Huaping Township, Jianshi County, Hubei Province, China . The holotype and all paratypes are deposited in the Institute of Entomology, Guizhou University, China ( GUGC) ( Zhang 2018).
Remarks. Erythraeus (Erythraeus) hubeiensis sp. nov. belongs to the species groups with fn Bfe 2-2-2 (2-2-1) ( Šundić et al. 2015a, b; Stålstedt et al. 2016). This group includes 10 species: E. (E.) phalangoides (De Geer, 1778) ; E. (E.) tinnae Haitlinger, 1997; E. (E.) chinensis ( Zheng, 2002); E. (E.) picaforticus Haitlinger, 2002; E. (E.) kacperi Haitlinger, 2004 ; E. (E.) yangshuonicus Haitlinger, 2006; E. (E.) etnaensis Haitlinger, 2011; E. (E.) walii Kamran, Afzal, Raza, Bashir & Ahmad, 2011; E. (E.) serbicus Šundić, Haitlinger & Hakimitabar, 2015; E. (E.) aphidivorous Šundić, Haitlinger, Michaud & Colares, 2015.
Erythraeus (Erythraeus) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) phalangoides in having sternalae 1a nude (vs. barbed), and by a number of measured characters given in Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) tinnae in having sensillary setae of scutum nude (vs. barbed in the latter). The new species is also different from the latter as follows: basifemur I has two setae, of which one is nude and another one barbed (vs. two barbed setae); lesser number of setae in fD formula (35–38 vs. 47). Other dif- ferences are in Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) chinensis as follows: eyes are without platelets (vs. with platelets), apices of 2b and 3b are pointed (vs. blunt); two pairs of hypostomal setae are present (vs. one pair); BFe I has one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae), and the greater number of setae are in fV formula (16–18 vs. 12).
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) picaforticus as follows: scutum is sub-rounded or oval (vs. hexagonal), BFe I has one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae). The new species differ from E. (E.) picaforticus by lesser number of setae in fD formula (35–38 vs. 72). Other differences are Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) kacperi in having BFe I with one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae); the greater number of setae in fD formula (35–38 vs. 29) and in fV (16–18 vs. 8); the presence of solenidion on Ge I (vs. absent). Other differences are in Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) yangshuonicus in having BFe I with one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae); eyes without platelets (vs. with platelets). The new species differs also from E. (E.) yangshounicus by lesser number of setae in fD formula (35–38 vs. 56). Other differences are Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) etnaensis in having Ge I and Ge II with microsetae (vs. absent) and Ti I with companion seta (vs. absent). The new species also differs from E. (E.) etnaensis in having BFe I with one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae); and lesser number of setae in fD formula (35–38 vs. 64).
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) walii as follows: one nude seta on BFe I is present (vs. absent), solenidion on Ge II is absent (vs. present). Other differences are Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) serbicus by Ta II without famulus (vs. with famulus); lesser dorsal setae (35–38 vs. 70–71). Other differences are in Table 4. View TABLE 4
E. (E.) hubeiensis sp. nov. differs from E. (E.) aphidivorous as follows: eyes are without platelets (vs. with platelets), 2b and 3a have pointed apices (vs. bifid at apices) and BFe I has one nude seta (vs. two barbed setae). Other differences are in Table 4 View TABLE 4 .
character | Holotype | a | b | c | d | e | f | h | i | j | SD | range |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fD | 37 | 36 | 36 | 36 | 38 | 35 | 36 | 36 | 37 | 36 | 0.8 | 35–38 |
fV | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 18 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 0.9 | 16–18 |
IL | 494 | 821 | 528 | 694 | 373 | 709 | 397 | 395 | 740 | 404 | 160.9 | 373–821 |
IW | 391 | 750 | 514 | 581 | 282 | 650 | 358 | 302 | 681 | 350 | 162.4 | 282–750 |
DS | 66–78 | 63–81 | 63–77 | 57–74 | 59–77 | 66–79 | 61–77 | 68–84 | 62–76 | 60–74 | 2.2–3.3 | 57–68 |
PDS | 71–78 | 72–81 | 69–77 | 69–74 | 66–77 | 70–79 | 68–77 | 73–84 | 70–76 | 67–74 | 2.1–2.2 | 66–84 |
Oc’ | 21 | 21 | 17 | 19 | 18 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 18 | 19 | 1.5 | 17–21 |
Oc’’ | 17 | 16 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 18 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 1.6 | 13–18 |
1a | 74 | 73 | 73 | 69 | 73 | 70 | 74 | 69 | 71 | 72 | 1.8 | 69–74 |
1b | 111 | 106 | 106 | 102 | 96 | 96 | 99 | 94 | 100 | 99 | 5.1 | 96–111 |
2b | 43 | 34 | 32 | 34 | 30 | 30 | 31 | 30 | 32 | 31 | 3.7 | 30–43 |
3a | 51 | 49 | 51 | 46 | 47 | 50 | 51 | 48 | 51 | 52 | 1.9 | 46–52 |
3b | 47 | 45 | 44 | 42 | 41 | 42 | 44 | 42 | 43 | 47 | 2.0 | 41–47 |
L | 103 | 100 | 94 | 97 | 90 | 93 | 95 | 91 | 105 | 98 | 4.7 | 90–105 |
W | 121 | 117 | 120 | 118 | 119 | 121 | 112 | 117 | 123 | 122 | 3.0 | 112–123 |
AW | 55 | 47 | 47 | 48 | 50 | 53 | 47 | 51 | 53 | 50 | 2.7 | 47–55 |
PW | 94 | 92 | 91 | 95 | 93 | 94 | 87 | 86 | 96 | 93 | 3.1 | 86–96 |
MA | 22 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 18 | 1.4 | 18–22 |
AA | 15 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 15 | 14 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 1.2 | 11–15 |
SB | 16 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 16 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 15 | 14 | 0.9 | 14–16 |
ISD | 73 | 73 | 68 | 71 | 65 | 70 | 70 | 64 | 72 | 66 | 3.1 | 64–73 |
AP | 48 | 50 | 47 | 51 | 46 | 47 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 49 | 1.8 | 45–51 |
AL | 103 | 98 | 101 | / | 94 | / | 96 | 91 | 97 | 100 | 3.6 | 91–103 |
PL | 91 | 90 | 88 | / | 83 | / | 86 | 77 | / | 89 | 4.5 | 77–91 |
ASE | 56 | 53 | 59 | / | 49 | / | 51 | 53 | 55 | 51 | 3.0 | 49–59 |
PSE | 88 | 79 | 80 | / | 76 | / | 77 | 82 | 74 | 82 | 4.1 | 74–88 |
PaScFed | 54 | 59 | 59 | 54 | 56 | 53 | 49 | 47 | 51 | 49 | 3.9 | 47–59 |
...Continued on the next page
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |