Electronoyesella antiqua Simutnik, 2022
|
publication ID |
https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.94.94773 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D9DDB53D-4A3E-430D-B3B7-8FDDBBE0260D |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/E78EBF78-2533-4025-98F2-B486BA6E3736 |
|
taxon LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:act:E78EBF78-2533-4025-98F2-B486BA6E3736 |
|
treatment provided by |
|
|
scientific name |
Electronoyesella antiqua Simutnik |
| status |
sp. nov. |
Electronoyesella antiqua Simutnik sp. nov.
Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4 , 5 View Figure 5 , 6 View Figure 6 , 7C View Figure 7
Material.
Holotype, SIZK K-27005, 1 ♀, Klesov , Sarny District , Rovno Region, Ukraine; Rovno amber; late Eocene (deposited in SIZK). The inclusion is in a reddish-yellow and clear, parallelepiped piece of amber (ca. 7 × 6.5 × 4 mm). It is well preserved, but its left side is obscured by a large air bubble (Figs 1B View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 ).
Syninclusions.
Nematocera , spider web.
Etymology.
The specific epithet means ancient in Latin.
Description.
Female. Habitus as in Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 . Body length 1.3 mm.
Coloration. Head, thorax, gaster dorsally, tegula, and all femora black; antenna uniformly dark brown; gaster ventrally dark brown; venation brown; mesotibial spur and tarsi pale yellow; surface of frontovertex, thorax, legs shiny due to presence of a thin layer of air, without metallic shine.
Sculpture. Head, pronotum and mesoscutum rough reticulate, but surface of head only sparsely punctate - frontovertex with 4 vertical rows of large but shallow piliferous punctures (Fig. 3A View Figure 3 ), outer row separated from eye margin by a distance equal to or more than diameter of this punctures; scape, pedicel, scutellum, tegula, mesopleuron, coxae, legs, and gaster also relatively similarly but more smoothly reticulate; sculpture of face as in Fig. 4 View Figure 4 - horizontal row of three large, deep cells located under each torulus, lateral to clypeus, also intricately sculptured.
Head. Lenticular, slightly wider than thorax in dorsal view; occipital margin sharp, but not carinate (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ); frontovertex curved to posterior ocelli; broadly rounded in frontal view, not vaulted above eyes; eyes bare, without visible setae, with inner orbits parallel over much of height but ventrally divergent (Figs 3B View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4 ); frontovertex as long as broad, minimum distance between eyes about 0.4 × head width; ocelli forming a right angled triangle, posterior ones closer to eye than occipital margin; OOL about equal to posterior ocellar diameter; OOL:POL:LOL:OCL about 3:11:8:4; eye reaching occipital margin (Figs 1A View Figure 1 , 3 View Figure 3 ); antennal scrobes as in Figs 3 View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4 , v- or u-shaped and meeting dorsally, not extended to anterior ocellus, in dorsal view anterior ocellus about equidistant from occipital margin and from upper margin of scrobal depression; interantennal prominence presents (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ); antennal toruli located about at level of lower eye margin, separated from mouth margin by distance equal to their own width (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ); distance between toruli equal to distance between torulus and eye, about 1.5 × width of torulus, about 0.5 × length of malar space; malar space with complete malar sulcus (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ), about 2 × shorter than height of eye; clypeus strongly emarginate, with short lateral margins; mandible 3-dentate, with middle tooth longest (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ).
Antenna. Geniculate, 11-segmented, without differentiated anelli, with 6 funicular segments and 3-segmented clava; radicle short, about 2 × as long as broad (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ); antennal scape ~4 × as long as broad; pedicel conical, little longer than first two funicular segments combined, longer than any segment of funicle; F1 subquadrate, slightly longer than broad, F2 and F3 distinctly longer than broad, F4-F6 subquadrate, F3-F6 slightly flattened; width of flagellomeres slightly increases toward apex; F5 and F6 noticeably wider than F2-F4 (Fig. 4 View Figure 4 ); all segments of funicle, at least F2-F6, and two basal segments of clava with mps; clava a little shorter than F3-F6 combined, with small oblique truncation at apical segment only (Figs 3 View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4 ), wider than F6; flagellum and clava clothed in very short setae.
Mesosoma. Pronotum short, not conspicuously narrower than mesoscutum, almost vertical (in lateral view), with posterior edge only slightly emarginate (Fig. 3B View Figure 3 ); mesoscutum as broad as long or nearly to (in dorsal view); mesothoracic spiracle open, not concealed beneath pronotum (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ); notauli present as depressions at extreme antero-lateral margin of mesoscutum (Figs 3A, B View Figure 3 : arrow); meeting of axillae not visible; scutellum flat, apically pointed, with several long, vertical setae at own apex (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ); mesopleuron enlarged posteriorly; metapleuron triangular, narrow, without visible setation (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ); propodeum bare, with relatively large lateral parts, touching hind coxa (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ).
Wings. Fully developed, hyaline. Forewing 2.5 × as long as broad; linea calva not interrupted but closed on posterior margin, without filum spinosum, with well-developed line of long setae alongside basal margin of dorsal surface (Figs 5A, B View Figure 5 ); parastigma thickened, hyaline break (unpigmented area) present; marginal vein 5 × as long as broad; stigmal vein as long as marginal, with long narrow uncus consisting row of 4 uncal sensilla (Fig. 5B View Figure 5 ); postmarginal vein 1.5 × as long as marginal vein, enlarged seta marking apex of postmarginal vein of forewing absent (as long as others on this vein); setae of marginal fringe short. Hindwing relatively wide; membrane of costal cell along submarginal vein with line of long setae (Fig. 5C View Figure 5 : ls1); spur vein originating from submarginal vein visible as differentiated hyaline process, alongside this a row of 5 thickened setae (Fig. 5C View Figure 5 : spv, ls2); apex of marginal vein with 3 hamuli; marginal fringe ~ 0.2 × as long as wing width.
Legs. Mid tibial spur about as long as basal mid tarsal segment or slightly shorter, both relatively long; mesotibia with row of pegs along anteroapical edge (Figs 1B View Figure 1 , 2A View Figure 2 ); ventral surface of mesobasitarsus and each next tarsomere with differentiated setation along anteroventral edge (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ); apex of metatibia with one peg originating from round, deep pit and row of spine-like setae (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 : arrows); tarsi 5-segmented.
Metasoma. As long as head and mesosoma together; cerci situated in apical third of metasoma, with long vertical setae (or bristles) (Figs 1A, B View Figure 1 , 6B View Figure 6 ); syntergum (Mt8 + Mt9) v-shaped, no longer than 1/3 of metasoma; posterior margins of Mt2-Mt5 straight, parallel; Mt6 and Mt7 slightly produced, M-shaped, U-like between cerci; apex of hypopygium with developed mucro, reaching apex of syntergum (Fig. 6B View Figure 6 ); lateral margin of hypopygium bare, without row of setae; ovipositor stylet thick; ovipositor sheaths (gonostyli or third valvulae) visible in dorsal view (Fig. 6A, B View Figure 6 : osh (v3)), as long as mesobasitarsus, connect at some angle with second valvifers (inner plates of the ovipositor, Fig. 6B View Figure 6 : vr2), apparently, movably fused; outer plates of ovipositor not visible but (as J. S. Noyes, pers. comm. 2022, suggested) appear very slender, appear to have filamentous connection to paratergite (Fig. 6B View Figure 6 : fc, ptrg?) running forwards to outside of cercal plate, similar to that of Ericydnus (Fig. 7 View Figure 7 ).
Male. Unknown.
Genus composition.
Type species only.
Remark.
Electronoyesella antiqua gen. et sp. nov. from Rovno amber is the 23th non-ant hymenopteran genus (from 57, 40.4%) and 50th non-ant hymenopteran species (from 73, 68.5%), unknown from Baltic amber (Olmi 2022a, b).
Discussion.
Late Eocene and extant encyrtid faunas differ ( Simutnik 2021). For example, fossil Encyrtidae with reduced or shortened wings are unknown. The presence of the filum spinosum (FS), one of the main features of the subfamily Encyrtinae , have been found in about one third (22) of the 64 examined Eocene encyrtid specimens (males and females). In extant Encyrtidae , the number of species of Encyrtinae (with FS) is approximately three times more than the number of Tetracneminae species (without FS). The venation of the forewings and the structure of the linea calva in the fossil described here, as well as in other known Eocene Encyrtidae without FS, most closely resemble those of Savzdargia Trjapitzin, 1979; Moraviella Hoffer, 1954; Monodiscodes Hoffer, 1954; possibly some species of Ericydnus ; and some other extant Tetracneminae . At the same time, distinct paratergites (the presence of which is one of the main features of the Tetracneminae : Trjapitzin 1968) have not been previously found in fossil females. Therefore, there is not enough morphological evidence to classify them as members of the Tetracneminae ( Simutnik and Perkovsky 2018; Simutnik et al. 2022a). Electronoyesella has a sclerotized, ribbon-like, separated part of Mt8 along the lateral edge of the syntergum (Figs 6B View Figure 6 , 7C View Figure 7 : ptrg?). This structure closely resembles the paratergites of extant Tetracneminae (Fig. 7A, B View Figure 7 : ptrg).
One of the most intriguing things in the evolution of encyrtids is what happens to the connection of tergite IX of the abdomen (Mt8) and the outer plates of the ovipositor (OPO) (J. S. Noyes, pers. comm. 2022). The OPO are completely separated from the syntergum behind the cercal plate in Encyrtinae . In Tetracneminae they are connected by the paratergite. Both features almost certainly result from advancement of cerci ( Noyes 2004).
Cerci of the earliest known middle Eocene Encyrtidae from Sakhalinian amber are close to each other, located at the very top of the gaster, similar to the ground plan state for Chalcidoidea . Then, tentatively in late Eocene, they began to shift towards the base of the gaster and the distance between them began to increase (figs 12-14 in Simutnik 2021). This process was most likely the result of adaptation to parasitization of the host, probably by Coccinea (for example, Archaeocercoides puchkovi Simutnik, 2022 from Rovno amber was fossilized near an undescribed crawler, see fig. 1C, D in Simutnik et al. 2022a). As the cerci advanced forward, Mt8 (or syntergum Mt8+Mt9) and then the previous terga began to separate into a dorsal part and lateral lobes (Fig. 7 View Figure 7 ).
The process of cercus advancement in both Encyrtinae and Tetracneminae occurred independently and in parallel, and it began precisely in the late Eocene, since the cerci still remain in the apical or subapical position in most encyrtids from European ambers. Cerci extremely advanced to the base of the metasoma, as in many extant taxa, have not been found in known Eocene Encyrtidae .
The elongate sclerotized strip (paratergite) in Tetracneminae apparently separated from the lateral margin of the syntergum when the latter became long enough and the cercal plates advanced significantly towards the base of the gaster. The true paratergite must directly maintain a connection to tergite IX (Mt8). This connection is traceable in many species of extant Ericydnus around the side and anterior of the cercal plate (Fig. 7A, B View Figure 7 ) but not in any other genera where the connection, at most is at best tenuous (J. S. Noyes, pers. comm. 2022). What is possibly the paratergite of Electronoyesella running anteriorly to the outside of the cercal plate is very similar to the paratergite of Ericydnus and may provide morphological evidence for the existence of the subfamily Tetracneminae in the late Eocene.
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.