Lelaps Walker

Desjardins, Christopher A., 2007, Phylogenetics and classification of the world genera of Diparinae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), Zootaxa 1647 (1), pp. 1-88 : 56-57

Lelaps Walker

( Figs. 14–21 , 68 )

Lelaps Walker 1843: 47 . Type species: Lelaps pulchricornis Walker (by monotypy).

Lelaps ; Haliday 1844: 299. [Subsequent citation of Lelaps Walker, 1843 ].

Lelaps ; Agassiz 1846: 18. [Subsequent citation of Lelaps Walker, 1843 ].

Laelaps ; Walker 1862: 389. [Incorrect subsequent spelling of Lelaps Walker, 1843 ].

Laelaps Dalla Torre 1898: 184 . [Unjustified emendation of Lelaps Walker, 1843 ].

Dilaelaps Schulz 1906: 144 . [[Replacement name for Lelaps Walker, 1843 , synonymized by Crawford 1912].

Stenopistha Strand 1910: 26 . [[Replacement name for Lelaps Walker, 1843 , synonymized by Crawford 1912].

Spalangiolaelaps Girault 1916 [299]: 22–23. Type species: Spalangiolaelaps argenticoxa Girault (orig. desig. and by monotypy). New synonymy.

Diagnosis: Within the Diparinae , Lelaps is unique in having a median clypeal tooth ( Fig. 16 , mct). Lelaps females also have an F1 which is at least 1.5X longer than F2 ( Fig. 14 ). Most diparines have an F1 which is subequal in length to F2, although the exceptions to this are some species of Netomocera , Nosodipara ferrana , and the feature can be questionable in Chimaerolelaps . Chimaerolelaps has 4 pairs of scutellar bristles while Lelaps has at most 2 pairs. Netomocera females have asymmetrical clava, while the clava of Lelaps is symmetrical. Nosodipara ferrana can be easily distinguished from Lelaps based on the features given the generic entry for Nosodipara . Additionally, Nosodipara ’s F1:F2 ratio is the result of a reduced F2 rather than an elongate F1.

Discussion: Although the author of Lelaps is often cited as either “ Walker (1843) ” or “Haliday (1843)”, this problem was solved by Crawford (1912). Crawford stated that although both articles were dated as being published in 1943, a footnote in the journal with Haliday’s description stated that it was actually issued in 1944. Although Walker referred to a Haliday manuscript in his description of Lelaps , he provided a full description of both the genus and type species in his paper. Crawford properly credited the generic name to Walker. Additional confusion was generated when Lelaps was misspelled by Walker himself (1862), and by Dalle Torre (1898). Both Schulz (1906) and Strand (1910) subsequently provided replacement names for the misspelling, as Laelaps was preoccupied. However, because Lelaps is the valid name for the genus, Crawford (1912) synonymized the replacement names.

Lelaps was resolved as monophyletic in 3 of the 4 analyses and is united by the presence of a median clypeal tooth. Heydon and Bouček (1992) discussed the potential synonymy of Spalangiolaelaps with Lelaps , although they maintained it as a valid genus, as the male was unknown at the time. However, the male of Spalangiolaelaps was identified during this study and resembles the male of Lelaps in all phylogenetic and diagnostic characters. The female of Spalangiolaelaps has been historically separated from Lelaps based on the following characters: absence of wings, absence of frenal sulcus, mandible with 4 teeth, nucha long and tapering posteriorly, and notauli reaching scuto-scutellar margin without joining. Examination of many described species of Lelaps have shown the last 3 of these characters to be variable within the genus. In fact, the majority of Neotropical Lelaps have notauli that do not join before reaching the scuto-scutellar margin. As many diparine genera have species with both macropterous and brachypterous forms (e.g. Dipara ), and this is generally considered a very plastic character within the subfamily, the only remaining character separating the two entities is the presence/absence of the frenal sulcus. Examination of four undescribed brachypterous species in the Lelaps / Spalangiolaelaps clade has shown variation in this feature. One undescribed species from the United States (Arizona and Florida, CNC) does have a frenal sulcus, but resembles Spalangiolaelaps in all other defining characters. The other three species (two from Cuba and one from the Dominican Republic, CNC) lack the frenal sulcus, but differ from Spalangiolaelaps in other features. These additional taxa were not included in the phylogenetic analysis because of the already strong support for the inclusion of Spalangiolaelaps in Lelaps and the desire to keep the number of taxa in the morphological analysis limited (i.e., to maintain a character:taxon ration as high as possible). However, in retrospect the inclusion of these taxa may have helped elucidate the relationships of Lelaps and Spalangiolaelaps in the broader context of diparine phylogeny. Regardless, due to the similar morphology of the males and the presence of variability of all characters used to separate the two genera within Lelaps , the genus Spalangiolaelaps is herein synonymized with Lelaps .

Number of Species: 42 described species, possibly hundreds of undescribed species.

Distribution: New World, except L. noortii which is found in South Africa: Western Cape Province.

Hosts: One species was reared from a boll weevil relative ( Curculionidae, J. Woolley pers. comm.).

Key to Species: Yoshimoto (1977) provided a key to the Nearctic species. Although a key to the world species is not given here, characters used to separate L. noortii from the remainder of Lelaps are given in the L. noortii diagnosis.

Figures

FIGURES 11–16. Conophorisca grisselli: 11, mesosoma (lateral view); 12, metasoma (lateral view); 13, cercus. Lelaps sp. A: 14, antenna; 15, clava; 16, clypeus, mct = median clypeal tooth.

FIGURES 17–22. Lelaps sp. A: 17, cercus. Lelaps sp. B: 18, head (dorsal view); 19, mesosoma (dorsal view); 20, mesosoma (lateral view); 21, metacoxa. Moranila sp.: 22, mesosoma (dorsal view).

FIGURES 65–70. Lateral habitus views: 65, Dozodipara insularis; 66, Myrmicolelaps iridius 67, M. aurantius; 68, Lelaps noorti; 69, Nosodipara ferrana; 70, Pseudoceraphron regieri.