Amphibolips jaliscensis Nieves-Aldrey & Pascual

Cuesta-Porta, Víctor, Equihua-Martínez, Armando, Estrada-Venegas, Edith G., Cibrián-Tovar, David, Barrera-Ruíz, Uriel M., Silva, Salvador Ordaz, Sánchez, Imelda Virginia López, Melika, George & Pujade-Villar, Juli, 2020, Revision of the Amphibolips species of the ‘ nassa’ complex from Mexico and central America (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), Zootaxa 4877 (1), pp. 1-50 : 16

Amphibolips jaliscensis Nieves-Aldrey & Pascual

Amphibolips jaliscensis Nieves-Aldrey & Pascual, 2012 . In Nieves-Aldrey et al., 2012: 11–14.

Type material examined. HOLOTYPE. ♀ deposited in MNCN (Cat. nº 2247; Code: 89200). MEXICO, Jalisco, Nevado de Colima, 19º 37’ 408” N, 103º 33’ 216” W, 2048 m; Ex Quercus aff. candicans , (31.iii.2009) iv.2009, leg. E. Pascual Paratype (deposited in MNCN): 1♂ with the same data as the holotype (Code: 89201) .

Additional material. “ MEX260, MEXICO, Mexico, San Juan Coajomulco; Ex Q. laurina Bonpl. , (16.iv.2014) 8.v.2014: 1♂ ( UB), leg. R. D. García-Martiñón ” .

Diagnosis. This species is characterized by lightly infuscate forewings with anterior infuscate band in females (males with completely infuscate forewings with a deeper infuscate anterior band), radial cell with a clear area on distal third in both males and females; lateral margin of eye smooth. Most closely resembles A. michoacaensis but scutellar foveae transversally carinate, with fine median carina not reaching anterior margin (smooth foveae with coarse median carina reaching anterior margin in A. michoacaensis ); scutellar posteromedian depression reaching margin of metascutellum (depression interrupted before posterior margin by strong transversal carina in A. michoacaensis ) ( Figs 5D , 11 E–F; 12C–D). This species is also morphologically close to A. nevadensis by the forewing pattern and smooth lateral margin of eye, but can be differentiated in females by F1 1.4x as long as F2 (1.6x longer in A. nevadensis ), posterior band of micropunctures on metasoma tergum II dorsally narrower, covering posterior 1/3 of tergum laterally and reduced to posterior 1/5 dorsally (uniform in posterior 1/ 3 in A. nevadensis ); males scutellar median depression rugate as rest of mesoscutellum (median depression with few rugae, mostly smooth in A. nevadensis ). Galls of A. jaliscensis and A. michoacaensis are subglobose, outer shell thin and rather fragile with uniform colouration (pale green in A. jaliscensis and whitish in A. michoacaensis ), with spongious parenchyma internally, the gall turning brown when dry. Galls of A. nevadensis are different for its distinct apical tip. Amphibolips jaliscensis gall is similar to other species with large globular shape, without mottled surface; it is not differentiable from A. hidalgoensis and A. michoacaensis , but differs from A. quercuspomiformis comb. nov., A. oaxacae , A. tarasco , A. kinseyi n. sp. and A. bassae n. sp. in having a deformable surface at finger pressure because the parenchyma relatively soft in A. hidalgoensis , A. jaliscensis and A. michoacaensis .

Gall. Spherical bud galls, maximum diameter 43–54 mm; outer shell thin, firm, surface smooth with uniform pale green colour turning into brown when dry; internal tissue soft and spongious, with central larval chamber around 5 mm ( Nieves-Aldrey et al. 2012: Figs 19A–B).

Hosts. Quercus aff. calophylla (= Q. aff. candicans ), Q. laurina .

Biology. The sexual generation is only known. The mature galls were collected in late March; adults emerged in April and May.

Distribution. Mexico: Jalisco and Mexico states.

Remarks. Nieves-Aldrey et al. (2012) characterized this species mainly by its clear, less infuscate area on apical third of radial cell of the forewing. This character has also been observed in A. hidalgoensis and A. michoacaensis , thus it is no longer considered as an exclusive diagnostic character for A. jaliscensis . We provide alternative characters to determine A. jaliscensis (see diagnosis). This species is difficult to differentiate from A. michoacaensis , except for two scutellar characters. This fact leads us to suspect that they might be the same species. The transversal carinae of the scutellar foveae are variable in length, number and impression between specimens of this genus. The currently known specimens of these two species appear to be consistent with regards to possession of the characters proposed in this study to differentiate them, albeit more material is needed to assess the degree of intraspecific variability, and to confirm which are reliable diagnostic characters.

Figures

FIGURE 5. (A–B) Mesosoma in dorsal view: (A) A. hidalgoensis, (B) A. malinche (Type) n. syn.; (C–D) Scutellum in posterior view and propodeum: (C) A. hidalgoensis, (D) A. michoacaensis (Type), posterior carina of scutellum signaled (white arrow).

FIGURE 11. Female dorsal meosoma: (A) A. cibriani (Type); (B) A. durangensis (Type); (C) A. fusus, scutellar postermedian depression signaled (white arrow); (D) A. hidalgoensis (Type); (E) A. jalisciensis (Type); (F) A. michoacaensis (Type), posterior carina of scutellum signaled (white bracket); (G) A. nassa (Type); (H) A. nevadensis (Type); (I) A. oaxacae (Type); (J) A. tarasco (Type), less dense sculpture signaled (white arrow); (K) A. zacatecaensis (Type); (L) A. fusus, mesoscutellum.