Torymus tumoralis Martínez-Romero, Janšta & Pujade-Villar, 2024

Martínez-Romero, Aitor, Vera-Ortiz, Alexis, Equihua-Martínez, Armando, Estrada-Venegas, Edith G., Tovar, David Cibrián, Janšta, Petr & Pujade-Villar, Juli, 2024, Description of two new species of the Torymus advenus species group (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) from Mexico, Zootaxa 5507 (1), pp. 153-166 : 155-160

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.5507.1.7
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FEBD7708-6EE4-4B1C-B759-CDD22AC3AB55
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13768036
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FB843A-FFFB-1449-B4C8-FF544DD3FB68
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Torymus tumoralis Martínez-Romero, Janšta & Pujade-Villar
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Torymus tumoralis Martínez-Romero, Janšta & Pujade-Villar sp. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:5C86F4AC-3438-4A3F-AB17-C5A8C279F50B

Figs 1–4 View FIGURE 1 View FIGURE 2 View FIGURE 3 View FIGURE 4

Type material. Holotype female (deposited in UB, col. JP-V) with the following labels: “P394: El Sundhó, Calpulalpan (Jilotepec, Estado de México), 20°3’37.2’’ N 99°38’4.293’’ W, 2688 msnm” (white label); “(26.ii.2019) 20.iii–13.vi.2019, Andricus sp tumoral, Q. crassipes, Chagoyán-García leg.,” (white label); “ Holotype Torymus tumoralis Martínez-Romero, Janšta & JP-V n. sp., desig. Martínez-Romero” (red label).

Paratypes 4♂♂, 11♀♀. MEXICO: the same data as holotype (1♂ UB); P043: San Diego Recoba (Hueyotiplan, TLAX), 5574493.77N 2151653.81W, 2632 msnm, Andricus sp tumoral, Q. crassipes , (03.vi.2010) 1–15.viii.2010, E. Estrada & A. Equihua leg. (1♂, 1♀ UB); P066: Huasca de Ocampo ( HGO), 2234005.99 N 545033.45E, 2174 msnm, Andricus sp tumoral, Q. rugosa (08.vi.2010), JP-V leg (1♂ 1♀ UB); P577: Haras ( PUE), Quercus nr mexicana, Andricus sp tumoral, (21.vi.2022) 15–31.vii.2022, JP-V & Cuesta-Porta leg. (1♂ 2♀♀ CUPC, 2♀♀ UB); P479: La Cruz de Tenango (Tenango de Doria, HGO), Andricus sp tumoral, (5.xii-2013) i–iv.2013, D. Cibrián-Tovar leg. (1♀ UB); P484: La Laguna Seca (San José de Gracia, AGS), Andricus sp tumoral, Q. eduardii , (10.ix.2019) 15.x.2019, I. Montoya leg. (1♀ UB); P522: El Puerto ( PUE), Andricus sp tumoral, Quercus sp. (12.ix.2012) xi.2012, A. Pérez-García leg. (2♀ UB); 428–448: Parque Nacional el Tepozteco ( MOR), Melikaiella sp , Q. castanea (1.ix.2011) ix.2011, L. Valencia leg. (1♀ UB).

Holotype condition. Air dried and glued with gum arabic on its left side on a white rectangular cardboard.

Etymology. The name of the species refers to the Latin ‘tumor’, reflecting the shape of the oak galls from which most of the specimens emerged.

Diagnosis. Females of this new species are characterised by having the head and mesosoma metallic blue-green with coppery and blue-green reflections, and the metasoma laterally and all legs except the coxae yellowish ( Fig. 1a – e View FIGURE 1 ); further, females have a distinct medial carina on the propodeum ( Fig. 3b View FIGURE 3 ), the tip of hypopygium reaching the tip of the gaster ( Fig. 1a View FIGURE 1 ) and the length of the ovipositor about 5× as long as the metasoma (OI = 10.2 – 10.8). In both sexes the metafemur ventrally is noticeably bulged subapically ( Fig. 3a View FIGURE 3 ), the clypeus is broadly bilobed ( Figs 1a View FIGURE 1 , 4b View FIGURE 4 ), and the tri-radiating veins of the stigma are inconspicuous ( Fig. 1f View FIGURE 1 ).

Description. FEMALE (N = 4). Body length excluding ovipositor 3.0– 3.5 mm; length of ovipositor 10– 12mm.

Colour ( Fig. 1a,c,d View FIGURE 1 ). Head metallic blue-green with coppery and blue-green reflections. Antenna with scape yellowish, pedicel brownish yellow, and funicle and clava brown; all sensilla light yellow. Mesosoma metallic blue with green and coppery reflections. Mesepimeron deep blue. Metapleuron blue, sometimes with green reflection. Legs yellowish, except procoxa and mesocoxa brown with green metallic areas, metacoxa metallic blue with green reflection anteriorly and laterally.Wings hyaline, venation and pilosity brown ( Fig. 1f View FIGURE 1 ). Metasoma yellowish laterally ( Fig. 1a View FIGURE 1 ), similar to coloration of legs, dorsally brownish with blue-green metallic reflections on Gt 3 to Gt 5 ( Fig. 1d View FIGURE 1 ). Ovipositor sheaths dark brown, covered by brown setae, ovipositor light brown. Body setation whitish.

Head ( Fig. 2a,b View FIGURE 2 ) coriaceous with shallow setose punctations, setae thin as long as diameter of torulus; clypeus and supraclypeal area coriaceous, with some piliferous punctures; scrobal depression finely coriaceous-reticulate, without setae. Head in frontal view 1.3–1.5× as broad as high, in dorsal view 1.9–2.1× as broad as long, and in dorsal view 1.1–1.2× as broad as mesonotum at its widest part; clypeus transverse, 0.4× as high as wide, with ventral margin broadly bilobed and delimited laterally by wide lateral clypeal sulci ( Fig. 2a View FIGURE 2 ); epistomal sulcus inconspicuous. Malar space 0.5–0.6× as long as width of oral fossa and 0.4× as long as eye height; malar sulcus present only in upper third of its length. Eye 2.1–2.3× as high as long. Ventral margin of torulus slightly below middle of eye ( Fig. 2a View FIGURE 2 ). Transfacial line 0.7× as long as height of eye. Temple strongly converging, slightly shorter than diameter of lateral ocellus. Ocelli large ( Fig. 2b View FIGURE 2 ), POL 2.3–2.5× OOL, OOL 1.3× LOD and as long as LOL. Occipital carina present; dorsally arched ( Fig. 2b View FIGURE 2 ).

Antenna ( Fig. 2c View FIGURE 2 ). Scape 3.3–4.3× as long as broad and pedicel slightly longer than broad; scape reaching dorsal margin of anterior ocellus; combined length of pedicel and flagellum 1.4× as long as width of head. Flagellum with one anellus; slightly broadening, with funicle segments clearly longer than broad except F 7 which is 1.1–1.2× as long as broad; F 1 shorter than F 2, 1.6–1.7× as long as broad; F 2 the longest funicle segment, wider than F 1, 1.7–1.8× as long as broad; F 3 and F 4 slightly shorter than F 2 and of roughly equal width, F 5 –F 7 same length as F 1, slightly wider than F 3 and F 4; all funicular segments with three rows of MPS; clava 1.8× as long as wide.

Mesosoma ( Figs 1c View FIGURE 1 , 2b,d View FIGURE 2 , 3a,b View FIGURE 3 ). Collar of pronotum, most of mesoscutum and posterior two thirds of mesoscutellar disc coriaceous-striate with setose punctations, the distance between the punctations up to their diameter; posterior part of mid lobe of mesoscutum and one third of anterior part of mesoscutellar disc less regularly sculptured, with deeper and more irregular punctations, the distance between them up to their diameter, and length of setae about 2–3× punctation diameter; notauli deeply impressed, with punctures; frenum demarcated from mesoscutellar disc by frenal groove, one third length of mesoscutellum, irregularly striate, the sculpture similar to a fingerprint; marginal rim complete, with short vertical carinae anteriorly. Dorsellum smooth ( Fig. 3b View FIGURE 3 ). Metanotal trough weakly differentiated, transversed by some longitudinal carinae ( Fig. 3b View FIGURE 3 ). Propodeum ( Fig. 3b View FIGURE 3 ) irregularly coriaceous with curved stria on the disc, anteriorly with short longitudinal costulae, curved outward in posterior half; propodeal median carina complete (rarely inconspicuous); prespiracular carina inconspicuous; spiracle 2.0× its own diameter from posterior edge of propodeum; propodeal callus with rugae and densely setose. Mesepimeron ( Fig. 3a View FIGURE 3 ) weakly alutaceous to smooth. Mesosoma 1.5–1.7× as long as broad; pronotum in dorsal view 0.4–0.5× as long as mesoscutum; anterior distance of notauli about 0.6 and posterior distance 1.6–1.7; mesoscutellum 1.0–1.2× as long as broad.

Legs. Mesotibia 2.5–2.7× as long as mesobasitarsus. Metacoxa without dorsal carina, reticulate-punctulate and with long setae dorsally; 2.5–2.7× as long as broad; metafemur 3.8–4.0× as long as broad, ventrally noticeably bulged and with subapical ventral edge serrate; metatibia 4.2–4.3× as long as broad, densely setose; metabasitarsus 0.4–0.5x as long as metatibia.

Fore wing ( Fig. 1f View FIGURE 1 ). Quite pubescent, 2.5× as long as wide; marginal vein 5.5–5.6× as long as postmarginal vein and 10.0–11.0× as long as stigmal vein; disc pubescent with speculum relatively small, partially open, reaching only basal part of marginal vein, with one row of setae dorsally extending from marginal vein inside speculum; costal cell dorsally with one incomplete row of setae along almost entire basal half of apical margin; basal and cubital cells almost bare; basal setal line incomplete; cubital setal line continuous from speculum; tri-radiating veins from stigma present but comparatively inconspicuous between wing pubescence.

Metasoma ( Figs 1d View FIGURE 1 , 3c View FIGURE 3 ) with Gt 1 smooth anteriorly, alutaceous posteriorly, other tergites alutaceous; Gt 1 and Gt 2 without setae; Gt 3 and Gt 4 with a few setae laterally; Gt 5 with longer setae than previous segments. Metasoma 1.7–1.8× as long as broad; petiole transverse; Gt 1 –Gt 4 deeply incised medially; tip of hypopygium reaching the tip of gaster. Ovipositor 2.7–3.0× as long as body and 5.0× as long as metasoma, OI = 10.2–10.8; ovipositor pubescent with setae relatively erect and longer than sheath width.

MALE (N = 4) ( Figs 1b,d View FIGURE 1 , 4a‒c View FIGURE 4 ). Length of body 2.8–3.3 mm; similar to females except as follows: head and mesosoma same coloration but darker, the entire metasoma dark with metallic blue-green reflections, mesepimeron green, entire coxae and femora dark blue with green reflection, metatibia brown in apical half; measurements similar to female antenna but with shorter F 1, and F 3 –F 7 similar in width to F 2; sculpture similar to female but propodeum without median carina.

Distribution. Mexico (Aguascalientes, Hidalgo, Michoacán, Puebla, Tlaxcala).

Biology. All specimens were reared from wooden tumoral galls on branches similar to galls caused by some Andricus spp. ( Fig. 8a‒c View FIGURE 8 ) and central vein leaf galls of Melikaiella nr amphibolensis ( Fig. 8d View FIGURE 8 ) on Quercus castanea Neé , Q. crassipes Humb. & Bonpl., Q. x dysophylla Benth (= crassifolia X crassipes ), Q. eduardii Trel., Q. nr mexicana (section Lobatae ) and Q. rugosa Née (section Quercus ).

Taxonomical remarks. In warreni subgroup females of only two species of Torymus , T. osborni and T. tumoralis , have the metasoma yellow. In fact, Grissell (1976: p. 50) mentioned that females of T. osborni are the only species in the advenus group with a yellow metasoma and medial propodeal carina. Based on these two characters, females of both species run to couplet 6 in the key of Grissell (1976: p. 47). However, females of T. tumoralis differs from those of T. osborni by head and mesosoma colour. In T. tumoralis females the head is metallic blue-green with coppery and blue-green reflections and mesosoma metallic blue with green and coppery reflections ( Fig. 1a,c,e View FIGURE 1 ), whereas in T. osborni they are blue-green. Further, T. tumoralis females have the metacoxae metallic blue with green reflection anteriorly and laterally ( Fig. 1a View FIGURE 1 ), whereas the metacoxae are completely green in T. osborni . Females also differ in the ovipositor length (5.0× as long as metasoma and OI = 10.2–10.8 in T. tumoralis and only 3.0–3.3× as long as metasoma and OI about 5.2 in T. osborni ), and the hypopygium length (reaching the tip of gaster in T. tumoralis ). For males and females of T. tumoralis , the shape of clypeus is broadly bilobed, while is weakly emarginate in T. osborni .

Concerning their host ecology of T. osborni and T. tumoralis , T. osborni is a parasitoid of Diplolepis Geoffroy ( Hymenoptera : Cynipidae ) in galls on Rosa , whereas T. tumoralis emerged from wooden galls on oak branches ( Quercus spp. ) induced by Andricus and Melikaiella Pujade-Villar (both Hymenoptera : Cynipidae ). Unfortunately, although the Andricus that induce tumor galls in Mexico were recently reviewed ( Pujade-Villar et al., 2013; Pujade-Villar, 2014), it usually is not possible to identify the exact gall wasp species based on galls only. The identity of Melikaiella is also not clear. Even though this genus has been studied recently ( Pujade-Villar et al. 2014) and the host species is highly probably M. amphibolensis Pujade-Villar , is highly probable as the host species, we did not rear any specimens from host galls and the identification based only on the galls alone is unreliable in this genus.