Westwoodia longipes Gauld, 1984

Wharton, Robert A., Roeder, Karl & Yoder, Matthew J., 2008, A monograph of the genus Westwoodia (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), Zootaxa 1855, pp. 1-40 : 11-12

Westwoodia longipes Gauld, 1984

( Figs 14 , 16 , 41 , 54 )

Scolobatina ruficeps Roman, 1915: 4 (original description, key, relationships); Viereck 1921: 144 (as type species of Scolobatina); Townes et al. 1961: 213 (catalog, key to genera); Townes 1970: 58 (redescription of genus, key to genera).

Westwoodia longipes Gauld, 1984: 233 –234 (new name for Westwoodia ruficeps ( Roman, 1915) not Westwoodia ruficeps Brullé, 1846 following synonymy of Scolobatina with Westwoodia ); Gupta 1987: 356 (catalog); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 456 (catalog).

Description

Male. Head ( Figs 14 , 16 ): Face largely polished, finely and relatively densely punctate and setose medially, sparsely and finely punctate laterally. Clypeus weakly and sparsely punctate, otherwise unsculptured; ventral margin broadly truncate and indistinctly carinate to blunt medially, abruptly angled laterally; epistomal sulcus distinct. Eye in lateral view 1.3X longer than temple; malar space about 0.7X basal width of mandible; malar space sparsely punctate and setose, gena sparsely and weakly punctate. Frontal depression shallow; lateral swelling of frons weak, about as in W. rodmani , smoother and punctate anteriorly, punctate and shagreened posteriorly, inner margin irregularly and weakly carinate; frons medially with median carina not evident but with distinct pair of carinae diverging posteriorly from midline in position similar to that of W. romani . Occipital carina weak, largely obliterated dorsomedially, weak but distinct ventrolaterally, curving abruptly towards mandible ventrally. Antenna with 43 flagellomeres, flagellum approximately 1.4X longer than fore wing; first flagellomere 3.7X longer than wide, 1.1–1.2X longer than second, densely setose; second flagellomere 3.2X longer than wide; 10th flagellomere 2.5X longer than wide.

Mesosoma ( Figs 41 , 54 ): Dorsolateral margin of pronotum moderately and weakly punctate, mostly smooth and polished. Notauli broad, moderately deep at anterior margin, short, not extending posteriorly onto dorsal surface of mesoscutal disc; median lobe of mesoscutum not elevated above lateral lobes. Mesopleuron weakly punctate and densely setose except smooth and polished posteriorly above and below mesopleural fovea; setation immediately below subalar ridge not readily visible but appears sparse. Propodeum glabrous or nearly so medially; pleural carina distinct but poorly developed throughout; longitudinal carinae welldeveloped apically but relatively short, absent anteriorly. Fore wing areolet absent, 2m-cu arising basad r-m; 1cu-a postfurcal; CU1a inclivous, forming nearly straight line with 2cu-a. Fore basitarsus 7.4X longer than mid-width, 1.6X longer than fifth tarsomere; third and fourth tarsomeres of fore leg 3.5 and 1.6X longer than wide, respectively; hind basitarsus 9.2X longer than wide; fore tibia densely setose, setae slightly more stout anteriorly than posteriorly, hind tibia densely setose throughout; fore and hind tarsomeres 1–4 compressed but slender, densely setose throughout, with very small, almost imperceptible pads at apex of each tarsomere.

Metasoma: Petiole without groove or depression mesad spiracle; dorsal carina obsolescent except at base.

Color: Head yellow; mandibular teeth, frons medially, and ocellar triangle black; antenna dark brown. Mesosoma black; fore and hind wings infumate, stigma dark brown; fore leg coxa brown, remainder of leg yellow; tarsus of middle leg brownish yellow; hind leg including tarsus dark brown. Metasoma with petiole largely pale reddish; apical margin of T2–7 yellow, T2 reddish laterally, black medially, T3–7 largely black, T6–7 pale along median longitudinal fold; apical three sternites black with yellow apical margin, remaining sternites reddish.

Body length: approximately 12.0 mm; fore wing 11.0 mm.

Host: Unknown.

Material examined. Holotype ɗ (NHRS): Australia; second label = 329 63; third label = Scolobatina Roman; fourth label = ruficeps Rm ; fifth label = 266 82; sixth label = Riksmuseum Stockholm; seventh label = Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan no 1/01. Additional specimen (doubtfully conspecific): 1 Ψ (BMNH): [SOUTH AUSTRALIA], Adelaide, F Sm[ith] Coll 79. 22. The specimen bears three older determination labels: W. ruficeps det. C. Morley 1911, not ruficeps det. Roman, and Westwoodia det. I. D. Gauld, 1984.

Diagnosis

First flagellomere of antenna densely setose throughout; tall interantennal flange absent, replaced by low, V- or Y-shaped carina, the median stem indistinct; lateral swelling of frons with weakly carinate inner margin; face finely and sparsely punctate laterally, slightly more densely punctate than W. ruficeps medially; occipital carina weak, partly obliterated; shape of female tarsomeres unknown; fore wing stigma dark brown; fore wing areolet absent; fore tarsus yellow, hind tarsus dark brown, mesosoma black, metasoma dorsally, except for apical margin of tergites, reddish basally, black apically.

Distinguished from all other species of Westwoodia by the poorly developed occipital carina ( Fig. 16 ) and the absence of a fore wing areolet ( Fig. 41 ).

Remarks

The sculptural details of the frons, especially the absence of an elevated median ridge, relatively depressed median lobe of the mesoscutum, and setal pattern on the occiput all argue for a close relationship with W. romani . As females are unknown, sexual dimorphism in structure of the tarsi cannot be assessed. Based on W. romani , however, we would predict that the tarsi of W. longipes are not obviously sexually dimorphic and thus unlike the condition in W. ruficeps .

Roman (1915) described a new genus for this species, based in part on two character states (i.e., absence of a fore wing areolet and apparent absence of an occipital carina) that suggested a closer relationship to Scolobates than to Westwoodia . Roman (1915) described the occipital carina as absent above and on the temple. The carina is present though weak on the ventral part of the head and appears to be weakly indicated dorsally, at least in part. This is difficult to verify because the holotype is somewhat dirty. Roman (1915) also mentioned differences in placement of the spiracle on the petiole and the protrusion of the median lobe of the mesoscutum. The differences in spiracular placement are not evident in the material at hand, given variation within populations of W. ruficeps , and while the mesoscutum of W. ruficeps and W. longipes are distinctly different, the new species described here connect the two.

The specimen from Adelaide noted in the material examined section is difficult to place because it is somewhat intermediate between W. romani and W. longipes . The occipital carina is effaced dorsomedially in this specimen vs. W. romani but well-developed dorsolaterally and laterally vs. W. longipes . As in W. romani , the fore wing areolet is present in the Adelaide specimen (though small, see Fig. 43 ), and the frons is more distinctly impressed, with the median carina present. The dorsal tendon of the propodeum is attached to almost a flat surface on the petiole of the Adelaide specimen and the holotype of W. longipes but within a distinct depression in all other specimens of Westwoodia that we have examined, including the type series of W. romani . The Adelaide specimen raises the possibility that the holotype, the only known specimen of W. longipes , is an extreme variant of the species we have described below as W. romani . However, until more material becomes available to assess this possibility, it seems more logical to retain the two as separate species given the differences in wing venation. The Adelaide specimen was specifically mentioned by Morley (1913) in his redescription of W. ruficeps , which it clearly is not because of the slender tarsi and lack of a tall, median interantennal flange.

The holotype is in fairly good condition. The fifth tarsomere and claws are missing on the right hind leg, and part of the left hind leg is missing distad the tibia.

Figures

FIGURES 11 – 14. Frons, presence or absence of elevated flange in frontal depression. 11, Westwoodia ruficeps; 12, paratype, W. gauldi, n. sp., arrow = carinate lateral margin of frontal depression; 13, paratype, W. romani, n. sp., arrow = absence of elevated flange; 14, holotype, W. longipes, arrow = weak, indistinct frontal depression.

FIGURES 15 – 18. Occipital carina. 15, paratype, Westwoodia romani, n. sp., arrow = carina present mid-dorsally; 16, holotype, W. longipes, arrow = where carina absent mid-dorsally; 17, paratype, W. rodmani, n. sp.; 18, W. ruficeps, view of back of head near base of mandible (mandible at upper right corner) arrows = occipital carina (left), hypostomal carina (right) and their junction.

FIGURES 38 – 41. Wings. 38, Westwoodia ruficeps from Queensland; 39, neotype, W. ruficeps; 40, paratype, W. rodmani, n. sp.; 41, holotype, W. longipes, arrow = fore wing areolet absent.

FIGURES 54 – 57. Legs. 54, Westwoodia longipes, fore leg holotype male; 55, W. gauldi, n. sp., fore leg holotype female, bar = measurement of basitarsus length; 56, W. gauldi, n. sp., hind leg holotype female; 57, W. ruficeps, fore leg neotype female, arrow = tarsal pad apically on basitarsus.

FIGURES 42 – 45. Wings. 42, holotype, Westwoodia romani, n. sp., areolet of normal size; 43, W. cf. longipes, arrow = relatively small areolet; 44, W. gauldi, n. sp., paratype male; 45, W. gauldi, n. sp., holotype female.