Pristiphora subopaca Lindqvist, 1955

Prous, Marko, Vikberg, Veli, Liston, Andrew & Kramp, Katja, 2016, North-Western Palaearctic species of the Pristiphoraruficornis group (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae), Journal of Hymenoptera Research 51, pp. 1-54: 36-38

publication ID

http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/jhr.51.9162

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:B3D68EDB-9CF8-44A3-BC43-E9C2D6626BD7

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/717D517F-5A4A-EAFF-4C38-F8007E821F36

treatment provided by

Journal of Hymenoptera Research by Pensoft

scientific name

Pristiphora subopaca Lindqvist, 1955
status

 

Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Tenthredinidae

Pristiphora subopaca Lindqvist, 1955  

Pristiphora subopaca   Lindqvist, 1955: 41-42. Holotype ♀ (http://id.luomus.fi/GL.5202) in MZH, examined. Type locality: Munksnäs, Uusimaa, Finland.

Pristiphora coniceps   Lindqvist, 1955: 39-40, syn. n. Holotype ♀ (http://id.luomus.fi/GL.5207) in MZH, examined. Type locality: Pihtipudas, Central Finland, Finland. Note. The male paratype (http://id.luomus.fi/GL.5208) is not conspecific with the holotype female and belongs to Pristiphora melanocarpa   ; therefore most records of Pristiphora coniceps   in the literature based on the penis valve belong to that species.

Pristiphora brunniapex   Lindqvist, 1960: 37-38, syn. n. Holotype ♀ in MZH, examined. Type locality: Pisa, Rovaniemi, Finland.

Similar species.

Based on the external morphology, the most similar species are Pristiphora albitibia   , Pristiphora confusa   , Pristiphora opaca   , Pristiphora pusilla   , and Pristiphora sootryeni   . The species is best distinguished through the structure of male penis valve (Figs 91-92). Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to separate females from Pristiphora confusa   and Pristiphora opaca   as the differences in the lancets are small (Figs 62-69). Apical serrulae are perhaps less protruding and longer (Figs 66-69) than in Pristiphora confusa   (Figs 62-63) and the basal part of the tangium lacks a fold that is present in Pristiphora opaca   (Figs 64-65). Externally, the pterostigma is uniformly yellow (Fig. 27) unlike in Pristiphora confusa   and Pristiphora opaca   , in which the pterostigma is basally dark brown and apically brown (Fig. 28). In addition, the claws of Pristiphora subopaca   tend to have a larger subapical tooth (Fig. 32) than in Pristiphora opaca   (Fig. 31). Among the males, the most similar penis valves are of Pristiphora confusa   and Pristiphora pusilla   . The ventro-apical spine is bent more strongly and the pseudoceps is broader (Figs 91-92) than in Pristiphora confusa   (Figs 89-90). Compared to Pristiphora pusilla   (Figs 93-94), the ventro-apical spine is bent less strongly and the dorsal depression in the middle of pseudoceps is less distinct, which is clear only when compared to the left penis valve of Pristiphora pusilla   (Fig. 93). The holotype of coniceps   Lindqvist does not differ in any significant way from the holotype of subopaca   Lindqvist. The characters mentioned in the structure of the head and thorax for coniceps   in the original description ( Lindqvist 1955), that are supposed to differentiate this species from others in the ruficornis   group, are minute and unreliable. The characters that help in species identifications in closely related species (colour of pterostigma and antennae, degree of coriaceous sculpture of mesepisternum, size of subapical tooth of claws, and the structure of the lancet) are not different between the holotypes of coniceps   and subopaca   . The host ( Salix   ) mentioned for coniceps   in the original description ( Lindqvist 1955) and by Kangas (1985) (as Salix caprea   L.) also fits with the data recorded for Pristiphora subopaca   ( Lindqvist 1965; Kangas 1985). Consequently we treat coniceps   as a synonym of subopaca   . We also treat brunniapex   Lindqvist as a rare colour form (only the holotype and one additional female are known to us) of subopaca   Lindqvist, because the only difference is that brunniapex   has a pale tip of the abdomen (terga 7-10 or 8-10; Figs 10, 12). Based on the second known specimen (DEI-GISHym20899, deposited in MZH) reared by J. Perkiömäki from Salix   sp. (near Helsinki, Finland), we can say that the host is not different from subopaca   either. Although the lancet of brunniapex   cannot be distinguished from Pristiphora aphantoneura   , Pristiphora luteipes   and Pristiphora staudingeri   , these species can be separated from subopaca   - brunniapex   by having different host ( Lathyrus pratensis   for Pristiphora aphantoneura   ), yellow metafemur ( Pristiphora aphantoneura   and Pristiphora luteipes   ), or as in Pristiphora staudingeri   usually strongly coriaceous sculpture of mesepisternum and different habitat (arctic or subarctic).

Genetic data.

Based on COI barcode sequences, Pristiphora subopaca   belongs to the same BIN cluster (BOLD:AAG3568) as Pristiphora aphantoneura   , Pristiphora bifida   , Pristiphora confusa   , Pristiphora opaca   , Pristiphora pusilla   , and Pristiphora staudingeri   (Fig. 1). The nearest neighbour (BOLD:AAQ2302, Pristiphora armata   and Pristiphora leucopus   ) is 2.76% different. Only one TPI sequence is available, which can be distinguished from other species (Fig. 2).

Host plants.

Salix caprea   L. ( Lindqvist 1965; Kangas 1985) and Salix phylicifolia   L. ( Lindqvist 1965).

Distribution and material examined.

Western Palaearctic. Specimens studied are from Finland and Sweden.