Pristiphora ruficornis (Olivier, 1811),

Prous, Marko, Kramp, Katja & Liston 1, Veli VikbergAndrew, 2017, North-Western Palaearctic species of Pristiphora (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae), Journal of Hymenoptera Research 59, pp. 1-190: 72-74

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.59.12565

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:598C5BB3-2136-4D91-B522-FA14D8874A52

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/47F10B05-1AC8-78A6-C5C8-191E21470CEB

treatment provided by

Journal of Hymenoptera Research by Pensoft

scientific name

Pristiphora ruficornis (Olivier, 1811)
status

 

Pristiphora ruficornis (Olivier, 1811)  Figs 15, 42, 266

Nematus ruficornis  Olivier in Olivier and Manuel, 1811: 167. No unambiguous type specimens were found in MNHN. Type locality: near Paris, France. Note. Two male specimens in Lepeletier’s type collection in MNHN (which we identified as P. armata  , but could also be P. leucopus  ) were under the name N. ruficornis  , but only one of them had a label " N. ruficornis  216 ♂". The number “216” apparently refers to Olivier’s Nematus ruficornis  in Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau (1823: 71) ("216. NEMATUS RUFICORNIS. Oliv. Enc., n°9."). However, Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau (1823: 71) mentions females, not males. In an old box of uncertain origin in MNHN there is also a female (we identified it as P. armata  ?) labelled “” N. ruficornis  " Lp. 216 N. crassicornis  H. 37.", but this seems to be of later origin than the publication of Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau (1823), because the specimen is identified as Hartig’s crassicornis  ( Hartig 1837). In order to reserve the name ruficornis  Olivier for the species concept used in the widely known identification key by Benson (1958) and recently reviewed by Prous et al. (2016), i.e. for the species feeding on Betula  not on Crataegus  , designation of a neotype would be desirable. However, we refrain doing so at this point, as no fresh specimens of ruficornis  are available from or near the type locality (near Paris). The neotype specimen should be fresh enough to enable extraction of good quality DNA, that could greatly facilitate solving the problem of separating ruficornis  from melanocarpa  (if they indeed are different species).

Pristiphora testaceicornis  Serville, 1823: 75. Syntype(s) ♂ not found in MNHN ( Lacourt 2000). Type locality: Paris, France. Pristiphora testaceicornis  Lepeletier, 1823: 60. Primary homonym of Pristiphora testaceicornis  Serville, 1823 [= Pristiphora ruficornis  (Olivier, 1811)]. Syntype(s) ♂ not found in MNHN ( Lacourt 2000). Type locality: Paris, France. Synonymised with P. ruficornis  by André (1882).

Nematus (Nematus) robustellus  Dahlbom, 1835b: 9. Type(s) not available. Nomen nudum.

Nematus fraxini  Hartig, 1837: 204. Lectotype ♀ (GBIF-GISHym3285; designated by Prous et al. 2016) in ZSM, examined. Type locality: Harz, Germany.

Nematus testaceicornis  Jacobs, 1884: XXIII-XXIV. Syntype(s) ♀ possibly in IRSNB, not examined. Type locality: near Brussels, Belgium. Synonymised with P. ruficornis  by Konow (1902).

Nematus (Pristiphora) ruficornis var. integer  Hellén, 1948b: 116. Primary homonym of Nematus integer  Say, 1836. Holotype ♀ (http://id.luomus.fi/GL.5212) in MZH, examined. Type locality: Hammaslahti, North Karelia, Finland.

Similar species.

The most similar species is P. melanocarpa  , which has darker antennae compared to P. ruficornis  . Females usually have a distinctly paler ventral side of antennae (Fig. 15), while the antennae in P. melanocarpa  are uniformly black (Fig. 14) or have only a slightly paler ventral side. Males of P. ruficornis  also have generally paler antennae than in P. melanocarpa  (Fig. 18), but penis valves should be studied to distinguish them from P. melanocarpa  specimens having conspicuously pale antennae. The valvispina of penis valve (Fig. 266) bends more gradually (forming a half circle) and is usually broader than in P. melanocarpa  (Fig. 264).

Genetic data.

Based on COI barcode sequences, specimens of P. ruficornis  are divided between two BIN clusters (BOLD:ACZ4465 and BOLD:ACZ4466) that also include P. melanocarpa  (Fig. 1 in Prous et al. 2016). Minimal distance between the two clusters is only 1.13%. Based on nuclear data, within species divergence is 0.3% (based on two specimens and TPI) and the nearest neighbour is 0.0% different ( P. melanocarpa  , only TPI including introns).

Host plants.

Betula pubescens  Ehrh. ( Prous et al. 2016).

Distribution and material examined.

Palaearctic. Specimens studied are from Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Russia (Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Buryatia), Sweden, and Ukraine.