Pristiphora leucopus ( Hellen , 1948), Hellen, 1948

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: 24-26

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/ED21A7D9-3C31-6FDA-2D1C-524D6DF727C0

treatment provided by

Journal of Hymenoptera Research by Pensoft

scientific name

Pristiphora leucopus ( Hellen , 1948)
status

 

Taxon classification Animalia Hymenoptera Tenthredinidae

Pristiphora leucopus ( Hellen, 1948)  

Nematus vitreipennis   Eversmann in Kawall, 1864: 295, syn. n. Nomen oblitum. Note. Kawall (1864) published an unaltered manuscript from Eversmann’s legacy. Lectotype ♀ (DEI-GISHym30027; here designated) in ZIN, examined. Type locality: foothills of Ural mountains [In promontor. Uralensibus], Russia.

Nematus (Pristiphora) ruficornis var. leucopus   Hellén, 1948: 116. Nomen protectum. No syntypes were found in MZH. Type locality: Joutseno, South-Eastern Finland, Finland and Pionerskoye [ Kuolemajärvi], Leningrad Oblast, Russia. Note. The lectotype of Nematus vitreipennis   (which was the only specimen found under this name in Eversmann’s collection in ZIN) agrees well with the summer morph (completely pale metafemur) of Pristiphora leucopus   ( Grearson and Liston 2012). The name vitreipennis   has apparently not been used as valid since 1884 ( Brischke 1884), whereas leucopus   has been used as the valid name for this taxon more than 25 times by more than 10 different authors since 1955 ( Lindqvist 1955). According to Article 23.9.1 ( ICZN 1999), the prevailing usage must be maintained.

Similar species.

The most similar species to Pristiphora leucopus   is Pristiphora armata   . Differences between these two species were extensively discussed by Grearson and Liston (2012). Whereas Pristiphora leucopus   exhibits seasonal dimorphism of adults, involving leg colour and shape of the serrulae of the lancet, no such dimorphism has been observed in Pristiphora armata   . Briefly, both male and female specimens which have a completely or nearly completely pale metafemur (Fig. 22) can be distinguished from Pristiphora armata   (metafemur of which is always completely or in most part black). Other specimens, with a black or mostly black metafemur (Fig. 21), cannot be distinguished externally. Unfortunately, differences in lancets (Figs 54-57) and penis valves (Figs 83-86) are also small and might not always be detectable. According to Grearson and Liston (2012) the general proportions of the lamnium of Pristiphora leucopus   (Fig. 54) are more slender than that of Pristiphora armata   (Figs 56-57), but this does not always work, because Pristiphora leucopus   can have a distinctly wider lamnium than Pristiphora armata   , though serrulae are in this case somewhat weaker (Fig. 55). Males can perhaps be distinguished through small differences in penis valves (Figs 85-86 and Figs 9-10 in Grearson and Liston 2012), as described by Grearson and Liston (2012) (see also under Pristiphora armata   ). Females with a black metafemur might also be confused with some specimens of Pristiphora confusa   (if they have a com pletely smooth mesepisternum). Usually, Pristiphora leucopus   (Fig. 29) has a uniformly dark brown pterostigma (usually basally dark brown and apically brown in Pristiphora confusa   ; Fig. 28), but the specimens with pterostigma apically paler than basally might not be externally distinguishable from Pristiphora confusa   . However, small differences in the lancets can help distinguish these species, as ctenidia in Pristiphora confusa   tend to be more distinct (Figs 62-63).

Genetic data.

Based on COI barcode sequences, Pristiphora leucopus   belongs to the same BIN cluster (BOLD:AAQ2302) as Pristiphora armata   (Fig. 1). The nearest neighbour (BOLD:AAG3568) is 2.76% different. BOLD:AAG3568 includes Pristiphora aphantoneura   , Pristiphora bifida   , Pristiphora confusa   , Pristiphora luteipes   , Pristiphora opaca   , Pristiphora pusilla   , Pristiphora staudingeri   , and Pristiphora subopaca   . Neither does our limited nuclear data allow separation of Pristiphora leucopus   from Pristiphora armata   (Fig. 2). The single heterozygous female would have a sequence identical to the single available Pristiphora armata   sequence if heterozygous sites (double peaks in chromatograms) were excluded. All the six heterozygous sites in Pristiphora leucopus   include also the nucleotide found in Pristiphora armata   , possibly indicating haplotype sharing between these two taxa.

Host plants.

Tilia cordata   Mill. ( Kangas 1985; Grearson 2006; Grearson and Liston 2012), Tilia x vulgaris   Hayne ( Grearson 2006).

Distribution and material examined.

Western Palaearctic. Specimens studied are from Austria, Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden.