Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4504.4.4 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:22EA060D-E125-4029-84D1-B5FED74B32D4 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5957953 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/AF42235F-FFF1-FF8A-FF0D-FC35FDA2F868 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995 |
status |
|
Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995 View in CoL
Figs 42–52 View FIGURES 42–52 (♀)
Eupelmino (gen. n.?); Russo, 1938: 231–233. Description. Unavailable name.
Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995: 179 View in CoL . Holotype ♀, MCSN, examined by LF. Type locality: Italy, Campania, Pisciotta. Calymmochilus russoi View in CoL ; Askew & Nieves-Aldrey 2017: 10 (distribution).
Diagnosis. Female. Macropterous. Mesosoma mostly orange-yellow; head metallic green to coppery ( Figs 42, 43 View FIGURES 42–52 ); gaster mostly dark brown except Gt1 to Gt3 and syntergum laterally orangish ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Legs mostly brown with lighter parts and metatibia white apically; scape yellow to brown basally. Head flattened, with lower parascrobal region abruptly angled to gena, with a carina between torulus and lower orbit ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Clypeus small and subhorizontal beneath antennal toruli, not protuberant ( Fig. 50 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Scrobal depression abruptly sunken but shallow, with almost vertical, carinate sides, entirely reticulate ( Figs 48–50 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Frontovertex between ocellar triangle and scrobal depression coriaceous-granular ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Mesoscutum uniformly coriaceous to slightly imbricatecoriaceous anteriorly. Mesoscutellum and axillae differentiated and distinct, flat to slightly convex and in the same plane. Acropleuron comparatively superficially reticulate ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Fore wing with darker base but also strongly and abruptly infuscate beyond basal cell ( Figs 44, 45 View FIGURES 42–52 ).
Male. Unknown.
Redescription. Female. Length. Reconstructed length of the holotype about 2.8 mm, that of the Spanish specimen 2.6 mm. Colour. Head of holotype ( Figs 43, 49 View FIGURES 42–52 ) coppery with golden lustre when viewed from certain angles, narrowly metallic green to golden green along inner orbit, laterad posterior ocelli, around median ocellus, along carinated margin of scrobal depression, above torulus, and on most of occiput. The Spanish specimen has golden green and coppery colours intermixed in about equal amounts ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Maxillary and labial palps pale yellow. Antenna ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 42–52 ) with scape yellow ( Fig. 50 View FIGURES 42–52 ) (basally brown in Spanish specimen) ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–52 ) and pedicel and flagellum brown with faint green metallic lustre when viewed from some angles. Mesosoma ( Figs 42, 43 View FIGURES 42–52 ) pale yellowish or light brown with faint metallic lustre. Pronotum, most of mesoscutum and prepectus, tegula and acropleuron brown-yellow with blue-green to violet lustre under some angles of illumination. Mesoscutum darker in posterior one-quarter to half, concolorous with but darker than mesoscutellum in the Spanish specimen, paler in the holotype; mesoscutellar-axillar complex darker, brown with some violet lustre. Propodeum brown with bright violet lustre under some angles of illumination. Front leg including coxa uniformly yellowish, except pretarsus which is darker apically. Middle legs of holotype with tarsi missing (otherwise difficult to observe because of the way the specimen is mounted and preserved, but similar in colour to fore legs); in the Spanish specimen middle leg similar in colour to fore leg except for brown-yellow coxa, femur brown apically, tibia brown basally and with an off-white apex, and mesotarsal pegs light-coloured with darker apices ( Fig. 46 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Hind leg brown, femur dark brown on posterior surface and pale ventrally, tibia off-white in apical one-fifth, and tarsus yellowish except for darker apex. Fore wing ( Figs 42, 44, 45 View FIGURES 42–52 ) infuscate, but with dark regions not so distinctly delimited as originally described and illustrated by Russo; membrane brown behind basal half of submarginal vein and with a broad band of light brown infuscation from base of parastigma to wing apex, more faintly infuscate immediately behind marginal vein, in area between stigmal vein, uncus and postmarginal vein, on wing apex beyond venation, and on about posterior one-third of disk. Hind wing translucent with a narrow infuscate spot basally ( Fig. 45 View FIGURES 42–52 ), almost indiscernible in the holotype. Metasoma ( Fig. 51 View FIGURES 42–52 ) dark brown with faint metallic lustre on all but Gt1, Gt2 and basal half of Gt3, which are orangish and somewhat translucent (more obvious in the Spanish specimen probably because of the method of drying and mounting); Gt1 darker in its basal half; syntergum laterally sometimes orangish (Spanish specimen). Ovipositor sheath brown-yellow with narrowly dark brown apex.
Structure and setation. Head strongly flattened along sagittal axis, with upper frons and parascrobal region in same plane and vertex forming a very acute angle to occiput ( Figs 42, 43 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Scrobal depression shallow, shorttriangular, with carinate margins ( Figs 48–50 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Lower parascrobal region with an acute ridge between torulus and lower inner orbit, the ridge intersecting carinated margin of scrobal depression. Clypeus ( Fig. 50 View FIGURES 42–52 ) not conspicuously modified, evenly convex, with six stout and erect setae. Frons coriaceous-granular, with cells delimited by engraved lines and surface of each cell convex, changing to imbricate-reticulate on lower parascrobal region, with a line of minute elongated cells from median ocellus to scrobal depression ( Fig. 48 View FIGURES 42–52 ) [this line of cells was described as a carina in the original description ( Russo 1938), but it is depressed in the holotype and in the same plane as the rest of the frons in the Spanish specimen]. Scrobal depression entirely reticulate. Lower parascrobal region with erect and more conspicuous white, slightly lanceolate setae compared to somewhat thinner, more hair-like, setae on frons and vertex. Torulus separated from mouth margin by distance much less than torulus height. Pronotum with a median impressed line but not divided, with a row of black, long and erect admarginal setae. Mesoscutum almost uniformly coriaceous to slightly imbricate-coriaceous anteriorly, with sparse, suberect dark setae. Mesoscutellum and axillae flat to slightly convex and in same plane, meshlike coriaceous to imbricatealutaceous posteriorly; largely asetose except for 4 or 5 erect setae on axilla and a pair of long setae on each side of mesoscutellum. Propodeum ( Fig. 52 View FIGURES 42–52 ) with narrow but long plical and wide callar regions, the plical region with a pair of subparallel but anteriorly converging median carinae running along inner margin of callar furrow; plical depression very small and overlain by a narrow median protuberance of metascutellum; callar region asetose, with a line of long white setae near posterior margin. Acropleuron comparatively superficially reticulate ( Fig. 42 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Fore wing ( Figs 44, 45 View FIGURES 42–52 ) costal cell largely asetose but dorsal surface near anterior edge with a row of dark setae in front of parastigma, ventral surface of costal cell with two partial rows of pale setae in basal one-third and a partial row of dark setae in front of parastigma; wing base including basal cell asetose except for dark setae on basal half of cubital area; disk entirely covered with dark setae except for a narrow band of white setae behind base of parastigma. Mesotarsus with an even row of pegs along each side of basal three tarsomeres ( Fig. 46 View FIGURES 42–52 ). Gaster reticulate with sparse inconspicuous setae except Gt6 and Gt7 with several stout setae. Ovipositor sheaths only slightly surpassing Gt7 (syntergum).
Remarks. Gibson (1995) formally named the species, referring to the description by Russo (1938), and included it in the planus species-group. Russo’s description and illustration are sufficiently accurate to recognize the species, and our redescription is focused particularly on colour, sculpture and setation. It is based on both the Spanish female and the disarticulated holotype. There are some minor differences between the two known females, as outlined above, but we interpret this as variation within the same species.
Distribution. The species is known only from the type locality in Italy and from its newly reported locality in Spain. Reported by Askew and Nieves-Aldrey (2017) from Spain based on the record in this paper.
Material examined. Type material. Holotype ♀. ITALY: “ Pisciotta / 30-viii- 937/ culivo | Eupelmidae / genus nov.?/ Ch. Ferriere det. | Museo Civico/ di Genova | HOLOTYPE / Calymmochilus / russoi Gibson ” ( MCSN).
Non-type material. SPAIN: Torres de Segre , Pantà de Camelis, 160m, UTM 31T BG8805, P. sinaica gall on Tamarix , 17.x.2012 (A. Ribes 20058) [new label by LF]. “ Arachnophaga / Tamarix / Torres ♀ / 20058” [original pencil label by AR] (1♀ BMNH) .
MCSN |
Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Verona |
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.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
SuperFamily |
Chalcidoidea |
Family |
|
Genus |
Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995
Fusu, Lucian, Askew, Richard R. & Ribes, Antoni 2018 |
Calymmochilus russoi Gibson, 1995 : 179
Askew, R. R. & Nieves-Aldrey, J. L. 2017: 10 |
Gibson, G. A. P. 1995: 179 |