Apanteles roughleyi Fernandez-Triana

Fernandez-Triana, Jose L., 2010, Eight new species and an annotated checklist of Microgastrinae (Hymenoptera, Braconidae) from Canada and Alaska, ZooKeys 63, pp. 1-53 : 12-14

Apanteles roughleyi Fernandez-Triana sp. n. Figs 58

Apanteles sp. near stagmatophorae. Fernández-Triana and Huber, 2010: 316. [Examined].

Type locality.

Canada, British Columbia, Mill Bay, 48°39'2"N, 123°33'33"W.

Type material.

Holotype. Female (CNC), with first label with Specimen ID: CNCI JDR-specm 2009-463; second label with Forest Insect Survey number: 65.21.01A, and date: 22.iii.1965; third label as follows: Apanteles grandis [probably Abies grandis ], Mill Bay, B.C.; fourth label: Ex? Choristoneura fumiferanae ; fifth label with a provisional identification by Mason 1978. CNC TYPE 23938.

Diagnosis.

This species looks similar to Apanteles stagmatophorae Gahan, 1919, and it will run to that species in the available keys (e.g. Muesebeck, 1921), but they differ in several characteristics. In Apanteles roughleyi the vannal lobe of hindwing is medially straight and glabrous (slightly convex to slightly straight but with uniform setae in Apanteles stagmatophorae ), the ovipositor sheaths are longer (1.7 × compared to 1.2 ×), the metafemur is thinner (3.5 × as long as wide compared to 3.2 ×), and the propodeum is more sculptured (in Apanteles stagmatophorae the propodeum is mostly smooth, with very shallow and small punctures). The two species have a very separate distribution (BC in western Nearctic for Apanteles roughleyi ; Maryland, in eastern Nearctic for Apanteles stagmatophorae ). The known host are also from different families: Choristoneura sp., Tortricidae , for Apanteles roughleyi ; Periploca gleditschiaeella (Chambers, 1876), Cosmopterigidae , for Apanteles stagmatophorae (more details below in the section Distribution and biology).

Description.

Female

Antenna broken, body length 3.3 mm, forewing 3.5 mm. Head with glossa truncate and short. Face with shallow punctures (separation between punctures about the same than punctures diameter) and uniformly distributed setae. Face width at antennal base/face width at clypeus edge: 1.0 ×; intertentorial pit distance/face width at clypeus edge: 0.5 ×; compound eye height/head height: 0.8 ×; head height/width: 0.8 ×; face width at antennal base/head maximum width: 0.7 ×; malar space/basal width of mandible 1.2 ×. Clypeus transversely narrow, its width/height: 3.0 ×. Length/width of flagellomeres: 1st (2.6 ×), 2nd (2.2 ×), 8th (2.3 ×), flagellomeres 12+ missing. Ocelo-ocular distance/posterior ocelli diameter: 2.0 ×; distance betwen posterior ocelli/ocelli diameter: 2.0 ×.

Mesosoma. Pronotum laterally with dorsal and ventral grooves thin, but well defined and deep. Mesoscutum with very shallow and sparse punctures (distance between punctures 1.5 –2.0× its diameter). Mesoscutum 1.4 × wider than long. Mesoscutum uniformly covered by silvered-coloured pilosity; scutellum almost glabrous, with just a few setae on margins. Scutellum almost smooth, with very sparse, small and shallow punctures mostly on the center. Scutellum length/width at base 1.1 ×. Scutellar suture very thin and shallow, with about 20 small and not well defined costulae. Posterior band of scutellum polished. Scutellar lateral face with polished area semicircular about 0.6 × the face height. Mesopleuron setose and with sparse punctures only on the anterior margin; the rest glabrous, smooth and polished. Thin, crenulated sulcus separating meso and metapleura. Metapleuron mostly smooth and polished, with setae and punctures only dorsally and ventrally along posterior margin; metapleuron with a thin sulcus running from lower margin near metacoxa through spiracle. Metapleural carina with a very short lamella. Propodeum mostly punctured, with a few striae postero-laterally; propodeal areola absent, but there is a central smooth area (contrasting with rest of the propodeum sculpture) and also there is a short, postero-median longitudinal band of rugosity (consisting of several short carinae radiating from nucha).

Metasoma. Mediotergite 1 narrowing towards apex; basal width/apical width 1.6 ×; length/apical width 1.9 ×; mediotergite 1 with smooth, basal depression; apical half coarsely punctured, except for a polished knob centrally in the apical margin. Mediotergite 2 transverse, trapezoidal in shape; basal width/apical width 0.5 ×; length/apical width 0.2 ×; sculptured with longitudinal striation and puntures covering most of the surface except the center. Mediotergite 3 1.6 × the length of mediotergite 2. Mediotergite 3 and following unsculptured, polished and uniformly covered by setae. Hypopygium striate, with an acute tip protruding well beyond the apical tergites. Ovipositor sheaths fully setose, 1.7 × as long as metatibia length.

Legs. Metatibial inner spur 1.1 × the length of outer spur, and 0.5 × the length of metatarsomere 1. Metafemur 3.5 × as long as wide.

Wings. Forewing vein R1a 1.3 × as long as stigma length; length of R1a 5.7 × as long as the distance between its end and the end of 3RSb. Vein r 1.0 × the maximum width of stigma. Join of veins r and 2RS slightly angulated; vein 2M 1.1 × as long as vein (RS+M)b. Edge of vannal lobe of hindwing medially straight and glabrous.

Colour: Mostly black to dark brown, except for: maxillary and labial palps (yellow); tegula and wing base (light brown); first two pairs of legs (yellow except for coxae which are partially light brown); hind legs (mostly yellow-brown, with metacoxa brown and dorsal brown marks on metafemur, metatibia and metatarsi). Wings hyaline, with most of veins brown, including stigma.

Male

Unknown.

Distribution and biology.

The host information ( Choristoneura fumiferana ) was recorded originally in 1965, i.e., before Freeman (1967) split the genus Choristoneura and changed the species boundaries. The actual host is either Choristoneura occidentalis or Choristoneura pinus , but there is no way to determine which.

Comments.

The specimen bears a label by W. Mason, dated 1978, stating that it may actually be a new species related to Apanteles stagmatophorae . Comparison with two paratypes of the later species (housed in the CNC) confirms that the two species are distinct. In spite of the fact there is only one known specimen, the species is described to provide a name because of its potential economic importance ( Fernández-Triana and Huber 2010).

Etymology.

I dedicate this species to the late Rob Rougley (University of Manitoba) who passed away when this paper was starting. We all miss you dear friend and colleague, but I am sure you should be chasing heavenly Ditiscidae beetles right now!