Galeopsomyia gallicola (Risbec), 1952

Kresslein, Robert L., Polaszek, Andrew, Burks, Roger A., Mottern, Jason L., Lahey, Zachary & Heraty, John M., 2025, Nomenclatural spring cleaning: tidying Aphelinidae of taxa that do not spark joy, and a new species of Prococcobius Hayat (Aphelinidae: Coccophaginae), Journal of Natural History 59 (9 - 12), pp. 609-653 : 642-643

Galeopsomyia gallicola (Risbec)

Trichaporus gallicola Risbec, 1952: 259 . Type data: MADAGASCAR: Périnet. Holotype by original monotypy, ♀. Type depository: MNHN. Type unknown.

Galeopsomyia gallicola (Risbec), 1952 . Established as senior synonym per ICZN (1985). Nomen dubium

Comments

Both Galeopsomyia metallica and Galeopsomyia gallicola were originally described in the genus Trichaporus Förster, 1856 ( Risbec 1952, figs 46–47). The taxonomic history of Trichaporus is tightly intertwined with its objective junior synonym Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900 . Förster (1856) originally described Trichaporus in the Tetrastichoidae (= Tetrastichinae ) but with no included species. Ashmead (1900) referenced Förster’s concept of Trichaporus as Trichoporus and established Trichoporus columbianus (= Euderus columbianus ) as the type species. Ashmead (1904b) established additional species in Trichoporus , and along with Crawford (1910) and Girault (1912), recognised that the original type species of Trichoporus belonged to the genus Euderus . Girault (1912) established Trichaporus melleus Ashmead, 1904 (spelled as in Förster 1856) as the new type species. Kurdjumov (1913) established a different species, Trichaporus solutus (manuscript name never published) as the type species of Trichaporus . Nowicki (1929), believed that Ashmead had incorrectly applied Trichaporus for species of Eulophidae and recognised four aphelinids within the genus. He established Trichaporus aleyrodis Mercet, 1930 , then a manuscript name, as the type species. Nowicki also suggested that Trichoporus could remain a valid genus name with Trichoporus melleus (Ashmead) as the type species. Trichaporus melleus and Trichaporus colliguayae ( Philippi, 1873) were moved from Trichaporus to Tetrastichus Haliday, 1844 by Gahan (1925), and later moved to Aprostocetus Westwood, 1833 by LaSalle (1994). Ultimately, Dozier (1933) synonymised Trichaporus sensu Nowicki with Encarsia . After decades of confusion, DeBach and LaSalle (1981) identified the convoluted utilisation of Trichaporus and Trichoporus , and they petitioned the ICZN for their suppression ( LaSalle and DeBach 1982, 1983). In ICZN (1985), Trichaporus Förster was suppressed and Trichoporus was recognised as an erroneous misspelling of Trichaporus . The remaining Tetrastichinae associated with Trichaporus were moved to Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 , and Aphelinidae associated with Trichaporus were permitted to remain within Encarsia .

While Risbec (1952) originally described both Trichaporus metallicus and Trichaporus gallicola in Tetrastichinae ( Chalcidoidea : Eulophidae ), Noyes (2019) mistakenly treated both species as Encarsia ( Chalcidoidea : Aphelinidae ); as a result, both species have been listed in species catalogues as Encarsia metallica and Encarsia gallicola ( Heraty et al. 2007; Kresslein et al. 2023). We agree with Risbec (1952) that these species belong in Tetrastichinae , but the illustrations that accompany the descriptions are not detailed enough to assert appropriate generic placement. Based on the taxonomic actions in ICZN (1985), both species are in Galeopsomyia . However, species of Galeopsomyia are restricted to the Neotropics and the species in question were collected in Madagascar and thus may belong to a different genus. We considered three options to resolve the placement of Galeopsomyia metallica and Galeopsomyia gallicola : (1) establish a new genus for these species; (2) move the species to their original combination and place them as incertae sedis within Tetrastichinae ; (3) leave the species in Galeopsomyia and treat them as nomina dubia. We decided against establishing a new genus because we could not locate the type material within the Paris museum. We considered returning the species to their original combination, but this is complicated by the suppression of Trichaporus . A potential solution was to refer to these the species as ‘ Trichaporus ’ metallica and ‘ Trichaporus ’ gallicola and regard them as incertae sedis within Tetrastichinae , in a similar manner to how Sforzi and Sommaggio (2021) and Dal Pos et al. (2024) treated species with unclear generic placement. However, because the Principal of Binominal Nomenclature requires that valid species names consist of a genus and a specific epithet, specific epithets cannot alone be treated as incertae sedis. Thus, we have concluded that the names ‘ Trichaporus ’ metallica and ‘ Trichaporus ’ gallicola cannot be used as valid species names. Therefore, we retain both species within Galeopsomyia as nomina dubia until their primary types have been located at the MNHN and are examined.