Saphonecrus lithocarpi Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen, 2015
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4341.1.4 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:E0EABB60-61DD-432B-B09C-8F5433DC7A9A |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6018208 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03DAEC67-FF9B-AC54-FF71-FDDBBBBF166E |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Saphonecrus lithocarpi Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen, 2015 |
status |
|
Saphonecrus lithocarpi Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen, 2015
SaphonecruS chinenSiS Tang & Schwéger, 2015 n . syn.
ThiS SpecieS waS deScribed baSed on adult femaleS reared from gallS ( Fig. 6d View FIGURE 6 ) collected on Lithocarpus harlandii View in CoL . After the firSt author conSulted the typical SerieS depoSited in ZAFU (12 paratypeS) he noted that thiS SerieS containS maleS and not only femaleS, the correct Sex of thiS SerieS iS 3 maleS and 9 femaleS (1♂ & 1♀ depoSited now in UB). The maleS differ from femaleS in the following characterS: antenna ( Fig. 5c View FIGURE 5 ) with 15 antennomereS, antennal formula: 4.0/ 2.5/ 4.0/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.5/ 3.25/ 3.0/ 3.0/ 2.5/ 2.5; pedicellum Shorter , 1.5 timeS aS long aS wide; F1 modified, Slightly curved and more expanded diStally than baSally, 1.6 timeS aS long aS pedicellum; ratio of POL:OOL:LOL iS 4:3:2 and relative lateral diameter of ocelluS 2.0; head more maSSive in dorSal view around 2.0 timeS aS long aS broad, and Smaller in Size (1.5–1.6 mm, N= 2).
Saphonecrus lithocarpi belongS to a group of SpecieS characterized by having Lithocarpus View in CoL aS hoSt gallS. After conSulting Schwéger et al. (2015a), the SpecieS and Saphonecrus chinensis Tang & Schwéger, 2015 appear to be the Same SpecieS except for Small difference in poSterodorSal punctuation of the metaSoma: abSent in S. chinesis Schwéger et al. (2015a) and preSent in S. lithocarpi ( Pujade-Villar et al., 2015) . NevertheleSS, a Small punctuation area iS diStinctly obServable in S. chinesis (Figure 38, Schwéger et al., 2015a), Similar to what waS Seen S. lithocarpi ( Figure 1B View FIGURE 1 , Pujade-Villar et al., 2015). We therefore conclude that the two SpecieS are the Same, with Saphonecrus lithocarpi , which waS deScribed in September, being the valid SpecieS, while S. chinensis , which waS deScribed in December, being the junior Synonym. According to the priority in publication date (NZC art. 23) we herein formally propoSe Saphonecrus chinensis Tang & Schwéger, 2015 aS a n. syn. of S. lithocarpi Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen, 2015 .
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 |
Saphonecrus lithocarpi Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen, 2015
Pujade-Villar, Juli, Wang, Yiping, Chen, Tianlin, Shen, Jie & Ferrer-Suay, Mar 2017 |
SaphonecruS chinenSiS Tang & Schwéger, 2015 n
Tang & Schweger 2015 |
Saphonecrus lithocarpi
Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen 2015 |
Saphonecrus chinensis Tang & Schwéger, 2015
Tang & Schweger 2015 |
S. chinesis Schwéger et al. (2015a)
Schweger et al. 2015 |
S. lithocarpi (
Pujade-Villar et al. 2015 |
S. chinensis
Tang & Schweger 2015 |
Saphonecrus chinensis Tang & Schwéger, 2015
Tang & Schweger 2015 |
S. lithocarpi
Pujade-Villar, Guo, Wang & Chen 2015 |