Kazalo: :: Library Catalog

Shranjeno v:

Bibliografske podrobnosti
Main Authors:	Noort, Simon Van, Gibson, Gary A. P., Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan
Format:	Recurso digital
Jezik:
Izdano:	Zenodo 2026
Teme:	Biodiversity Taxonomy Animalia Arthropoda Insecta Hymenoptera Pteromalidae Chalcedectus Chalcedectus balachowskyi
Online dostop:	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19174899
Oznake:	Označite Brez oznak, prvi označite!

Kazalo:

Chalcedectus balachowskyi Steffan(Figs 51‒56)Chalcedectus balachowskyi Steffan, 1968: 210‒212; holotype &female; (MHNG, examined).Holotype. IRAN • 1&female;: Sur Rosacées, Shiraz (Iran), Sharifi leg., Ex Osphranteria coerulescens, HOLOTYPE, Chalcedectus balachowskyi J. R. Steffan det., MHNG ENTO 0109385 (Fig. 54D). [Condition of holotype: antennae missing and left front leg and partial left wing (region posterior of about medial fold missing for most of length) glued to card upon which the body is glued (Fig. 51A,B)].Other material examined. IRAN • 2&female; 2&male;; Sistan-Baluchestan Province, Chabahar, Bahu-Kalat village, 25°42’04”B 61°25’25”E, 23m, 13.IX.2016 - 17.IV.2017, H. Lotfalizadeh, MT (HMIM: 2&female;, CNC Photos 2024-058, 2024-059; 2&male;, CNC photos 2024-056, 2024-057).Diagnosis. Both sexes: head and mesosoma usually with some metallic lustre (Figs 51‒56), but legs entirely dark except usually for tarsi basally; mesoscutum without differentiated adnotaular region, more or less uniformly reticulate on either side of notauli posteriorly (Figs 53A,B, 55C); axilla more or less uniformly reticulate, without distinctly differentiated inner region (Figs 53A,B, 55C, 56C); mesoscutellum punctate-reticulate to punctate with fine mesh like subsculpture on interstices (Fig. 56C). Female: frontovertex usually partly metallic green to bluish-green in pattern differentiating dark transverse band between inner orbits above scrobal depression and vertical dark regions on either side of median ocellus (Fig. 51D‒F), and with comparatively large and distinct punctures or reticulations (Fig. 51C,F); Gt 5 mostly variably coarsely punctate with circular to oval punctures (Fig. 54A,B) to more punctate-reticulate (Fig. 54E,F). Male: propodeum with both plical region and bare part of callar region coarsely sculptured, rugulose (Fig. 56A) or plical region rugulose and bare part of callar region punctate-reticulate (Fig. 56B).Biology. Parasitoid of Osphranteria coerulescens Redenbacher (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) on Rosa sp. (Rosaceae) (Steffan, 1968; Sharifi & Javadi, 1971; Gibson et al. 2021).Distribution. Iran.Description. FEMALE (Figs 51‒54). Holotype: body length 7.6 mm.Colour. Head (Fig. 51D) extensively dark with eyes brown, and clypeus and mandibles basally paler brown (Fig. 51D), but inner orbits narrowly, frontovertex mesally above and below median ocellus, and upper part of scrobes with green to bluish lustre differentiating transverse dark band between inner orbits above scrobal depression and vertical dark regions between lateral ocelli and transverse band on either side of median ocellus (Fig. 51D,F), with vertex transversely behind lateral ocelli (Fig. 52A) and interantennal region and gena near genal carina also green to bluish or purple or, under some angles of light, parascrobal region, gena and interantennal region more extensively violaceous (Figs 51D,F, 52C). Antennae missing [described originally as “entirely black, including the spicule, except for the apical half of the last article red”]. Labial and maxillary palp dark brown (Figs 51D, 52C). Mesosoma (Fig. 52B,C) mostly dark and with limited metallic lustres as follows: pronotum with distinct green to bluish lustre dorsolaterally (Fig. 52B) and narrowly anterolaterally (Fig. 52C); axilla with variably distinct green to blue or violaceous lustre under different angles of light (Figs 51B, 53A); metanotum and propodeum with blue or purple to violaceous lustres under various angles of light (Fig. 53C) [the different colours undoubtedly partly an artefact of state of preservation]. Legs dark, similar in colour to mesosoma except tarsi white basally to pale yellowish-orange apically (Fig. 51A). Fore wing (Fig. 53B) with venation dark brown except submarginal vein paler, yellowish-brown; disc with distinct brown infuscation mesally, the infuscation extending from marginal, stigmal and base of postmarginal vein such that triangular region between stigmal and postmarginal veins infuscate, and with infuscation extending along radio-medial fold (Fig. 53B: r-m) posteriorly to medial fold (Fig. 53B: mdf), with cubital fold (Fig. 53B: cf) similarly darkly infuscate, but regions between medial and cubital folds and posterior to cubital fold more faintly infuscate; with dark setae beyond level of base of marginal vein, but with inconspicuous, sparser, pale setae behind submarginal vein including, at least anteriorly, in basal cell. Gaster (Fig. 54A) with Gt 1 variably reddish basally to coppery to green apically under some angles of light, and remaining tergites mostly with slight coppery to reddish-violaceous and bluish lustres under some angles of light (Fig. 54A‒C). Body setae white, hair-like to slightly lanceolate on head (Fig. 51D,F) and mesosoma, but longer, more distinctly lanceolate, and much denser to form white reflective patch on propodeal callus (Fig. 53C), Gt 5 also with comparatively dense region of slightly lanceolate, short setae dorsolaterally (Fig. 54A,B), and Gt 6 and syntergum dorsally setose (Fig. 54C).Head. In frontal view (Fig. 51D) with interantennal region low-convex, without distinct lateral margins relative to Λ- shaped convergent scrobes; ITD about 0.8× LPD; frontovertex (Fig. 51F) punctate-reticulate with larger reticulations in region between median ocellus and scrobal depression than lateral and dorsal of median ocellus, but the reticulations smaller than on parascrobal region and gena to genal carina where more reticulate-umbilicate (Fig. 51D); scrobal depression reticulate-punctate dorsally (Fig. 51F) to transversely strigose within scrobes; interantennal region comparatively smooth, mostly coriaceous with scattered, shallow, circular setiferous punctures (Fig. 51D). In dorsal view (Fig. 52A) HW about 2.75× HL; POL: OOL: LOL: LOD = 1.3: 0.2: 1.3: 1.0; IOD about 0.35× HW. In lateral view (Fig. 52C) malar space about 0.5× eye height (Fig. 52C). Antennae missing [described originally as “with first funicular hardly longer than wide (15:12), the second approximately 1.5× times as long as wide (20:13), the third and fourth being comparatively shorter (15:12), the fifth square (12:12), and the following ones widening until the clava (7:17)”]. Left mandible tridentate [dentition of right mandible concealed under left mandible], the dorsal-most tooth the smallest. Maxillary palp with apical segment not distinctively long, shorter than width of lower parascrobal region and only about as long as basal tarsomere, slightly curved (Fig. 51D).Mesosoma. Pronotum dorsolaterally (Fig. 52B) similarly punctate-reticulate as mesoscutum except extreme posterolateral angle (region with metallic lustre) somewhat smoother; laterally coarsely sculptured throughout, punctate-reticulate dorsally to more reticulate-strigose ventrally (Fig. 52C). Mesoscutum in lateral view strongly convex above dorsal margin of pronotum (Fig. 52C), without differentiated adnotaular region, similarly punctate-reticulate on either side of notaulus posteriorly (Fig. 53A); axilla (Fig. 53A) without distinctly differentiated inner region, similarly punctuate-reticulate dorsally, though posterior, inclined part more finely punctate to ventrally strigose; mesoscutellum low-convex (Fig. 52C), with carinate marginal rim laterally but not apically (Fig. 53C) and sides convergent to rounded apex extending slightly over dorsellum (Fig. 51C), subequal in width and length, mostly punctate-reticulate with interstices having fine coriaceous subsculpture; mesepimeron (Fig. 52C) mesh like reticulate along posterior margin, but mostly coriaceous below and smooth above transepimeral pit. Propodeum (Fig. 53C) with longitudinal foraminal carinae (Fig. 53C: frc) extending anteriorly within plical region for about half length, the carinae much longer than comparatively obscurely developed adpetiolar strip (Fig. 53C: aps), and plical region otherwise irregularly rugulose; callar region differentiated from bare region posteriorly by lateralmost foraminal carina extending partly toward anterior margin of propodeum as partly developed paraspiracular carina (Fig. 53C: arrows), and bare region coarsely sculptured, punctate-rugulose between plical furrow and setae. Metafemur serrate, with about 16 exterior teeth; MFL about 1.5× MFH. Fore wing (Fig. 53B) with smv: mv: pmv: stv = 9.0: 2.8: 3.6: 1.0.Gaster (Fig. 54A) with Gt 1 smooth and shiny basally and along apical margin but with transverse, finely mesh like coriaceous band subapically; Gt 2 and Gt 3 (Fig. 54A,B) shiny and smooth to obscurely mesh like coriaceous under some angles of light; Gt 4 (Fig. 54A,B) transversely strigose-reticulate basally and coriaceous apically; Gt 5 (Fig. 54A,B) mesh like coriaceous-reticulate along extreme basal margin and more broadly and more finely mesh like coriaceous along posterior margin, but mostly punctate dorsomedially and laterally with punctures shallowed posteriorly so as to appear somewhat punctate-imbricate dorsolaterally to mesh like coriaceous-imbricate laterally; Gt 6 (Fig. 54A) with similar sculpture pattern as Gt 5, mostly punctate dorsally except anteriorly and posteriorly, and with sculpture shallowed laterally; syntergum (Fig. 54C) with presumptive Gt 6 and Gt 7 differentiated from each other only by smooth and shiny, bare transverse band and difference in convexity, not by a distinct groove, mostly transversely punctate mesally and smoother except for setal bases apically, similarly to presumptive Gt 7 [smooth region along anterior margin of syntergum (Fig. 54C: white line) normally concealed under Gt 6].Variation. Steffan (1968) stated his two females were 7.5‒8.1 mm in length; consequently, the unseen paratype is slightly larger than the holotype, whereas the two additionally seen females are about 4.5 mm (2024-058) and 5.3 mm (2024-059) in length, both smaller than the type material. The two females also differ from at least the holotype in other structural, sculpture and colour features. Female 2024-058 has more distinct metallic green to bluish-green lustres on the head (Figs 51E, 52D) and mesosoma (Figs 52E,F, 53D,F) than the holotype (Figs 51D, 52A‒C) or 2024-059. The latter female is black with only a slight coppery lustre on the mesosoma dorsally, most distinctly on the mesoscutellum and on Gt 1, and limited green to blue lustre laterally on the callus. The head of 2024-059 also lacks the colour pattern of the frontovertex described for the holotype (Fig. 51D,F) that is also exhibited by 2024- 058 (Fig. 51E), and has the apical four tarsomeres orange to brown, unlike the holotype (Fig. 51A) and 2024-058, which have more extensively pale tarsomeres. Steffan (1986) noted that the apical two tarsomeres of the paratype were brown compared to the stated pale yellow of the holotype (Fig. 51A). Steffan (1968) also described the antenna for C. balachowskyi as entirely black except for the apical half of the last article, whereas both 2024-058 (Fig. 52E) and 2024-059 (Fig. 52C) have most or all funiculars variably distinctly paler than the clava, pedicel and scape, particularly 2024-058, which has the funiculars and scape basally quite distinctly paler than the pedicel or clava. Both 2024-058 (Fig. 53E) and 2024-059 have similar but fainter fore wing infuscation as the holotype (Fig. 53B). Structurally, in addition to being smaller than the holotype, both 2024-058 (Fig. 52F) and 2024-059 have the mesoscutum much less distinctly and abruptly raised above the level of the pronotum than the holotype (Fig. 52C). However, this feature also appears to be variable for C. sinaiticus (cf. Fig. 58B,D). Another conspicuous difference between the two females and the holotype is relative thickness of the head. In dorsal view, the head of the holotype in dorsal view is much more transverse, being about 2.75× as wide as long (Fig. 52A), compared to the other two females, which have the head only about 2.2‒2.5× (Fig. 52D) as wide as long. This difference is reflected in the relative width of the interocular region compared to the width of the head, being about 0.35× for the holotype and 0.41‒0.45× for the other two females. However, smaller versus larger females of C. copelandi also exhibit a similar difference in head structure (cf. Fig. 3D with Figs 3A, 4A), which indicates the difference is size correlated. Sculpture of Gt 5 of the two females also differs from the holotype, being uniformly coarsely punctate-reticulate (2024-059) to more mesh like reticulate (2024-058, Fig. 54E,F) compared to the medially more micropunctate sculpture of the holotype (Fig. 54A,B). General sculpture pattern of the propodeum among the three females is similar, including having the median foraminal carinae extending about half the length of the plical region and being much longer than the comparatively poorly delineated adpetiolar strip (cf. Fig. 53C,F), though both 2024-058 and 2024-059 have a more distinctly delineated paraspiracular carina that extends anteriorly almost to the spiracle (cf. Fig. 53C,F: arrows) and 2024-058 (Fig. 53F) has the bare part of the callus less coarsely sculptured than the holotype (Fig. 53C) or 2024-059. There is also a slight difference in sculpture of the mesoscutellum between 2024-058 and the other two females. The holotype and 2024-059 have the mesoscutellum essentially uniformly punctate-reticulate with some coriaceous subsculpture visible on the interstices under higher magnification (Figs 52B, 53C), whereas the smaller 2024-058 female (Figs 52E, 53F) has comparatively wider and more conspicuously sculptured interstices medially on the mesoscutellum so that the punctures are less distinct than laterally on the sides and the sculpture appears more punctate-imbricate to rugulose than distinctly punctate-reticulate. However, all three females lack a distinctly differentiated adnotaular region, the mescutum posteriorly being more or less uniformly mesh like reticulate on either side of the notauli, and the axillae lack distinctly differentiated inner regions (cf. Fig. 53A,D), similar to the holotype of C. balachowyski and unique among the species herein treated. We therefore presently consider the observed differences among the three females as infraspecific variation.MALE (Figs 55, 56). Body length 3.0‒ 4.5 mm.Colour. Head (Fig. 55E) dark or with slight violaceous lustre under some angles of light, with more distinct bluish lustre at most only narrowly along inner orbits (Fig. 55F), without distinctly delineated facial bands. Antenna entirely dark (Fig. 55E,G). Labial and maxillary palps dark (Fig. 55B). Mesosoma similarly dark as head with slight reddish-coppery lustre under some angles of light, and sometimes with more distinct bluish-green to blue or purple lustre on pronotum dorsolaterally, mesoscutum posteriorly (Fig. 55A,C) and propodeum (Fig. 56A,B). Legs entirely dark except basitarsomeres with about basal half or entirely pale and remaining tarsomeres orange to dark brown (Fig. 55B,I). Fore wing with entirely dark setae, hyaline basally to level about equal with base of marginal wing but with brownish infuscation beyond to apex (Fig. 55H). Gaster mostly dark with reddish-coppery lustre except Gt 1 variably extensive green to bluish basally (Fig. 56D‒F) and apical tergites sometimes with slight bluish lustre under some angles of light (Fig. 56E). Body setae white, unmodified, similar to female.Head. Structure and sculpture similar to female; in dorsal view: HW about 2.2× HL, and POL about 1.25‒1.4× LOL and 3.5‒5.0× LOD; frontovertex with smaller punctures than female, but still comparatively large and distinct (Fig. 55E,F); interantennal region (Fig. 55E) low-convex, mostly irregularly mesh like coriaceous to more coarsely reticulate-rugulose. Antenna (Fig. 55E,G) clavate, not unusually modified.Mesosoma with structure and sculpture of mesonotum similar to female: mesoscutum more or less uniformly reticulate without differenentiated adnotaular regions (Fig. 55C); axillae reticulate without distinctly differentiated inner region (Figs 55C, 56C); mesoscutellum with extensive carinate lateral margin, but not continuous along apex (Fig. 56C), dorsally punctate with distinct coriaceous subsculpture on interstices (Fig. 56C), and in lateral view convex and extending over metanotum (Fig. 55D); propodeum with both plical region and bare part of callar region strongly sculptured, rugulose (Fig. 56A), or bare part of callar region more punctate-reticulate (Fig. 56B), with longitudinal carinae of foraminal furrow extending anteriorly for about half length of plical region (Fig. 56A,B: frc), and adpetiolar strip variably developed, smooth and shiny (Fig. 56A: aps) or not distinctly differentiated (Fig. 56C).Gaster (Figs 55B, 56D) with Gt 1 smooth and shiny to very finely mesh like coriaceous; sculpture pattern of Gt 2 ‒Gt 4 uncertain because mostly concealed under Gt 1 (Fig. 56D,E), but Gt 5, other than along posterior margin,mesh like reticulate (Fig. 56E) to much more finely mesh like coriaceous-reticulate to coriaceous (Fig. 56F); Gt6 similarly variably coarsely sculptured as Gt 5, mostly mesh like reticulate (Fig. 56E) to more finely mesh like coriaceous-imbricate ((Fig. 56F).Recognition. As noted above, Steffan (1968) described C. balachowskyi based on two females, of which we examined the holotype (Fig. 51A,B) but not the paratype, which was stated as deposited in Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France. The only illustrations provided were lateral line drawings of the head and anterior part of the mesosoma to show the difference in curvature of the mesoscutum above the pronotum in C. balachowskyi (cf. Fig. 52C and Steffan 1968, fig. 1) compared to C. sinaiticus (Steffan 1968, fig. 2). Since its description, various publications have subsequently recorded C. balachowskyi from Iran (see Gibson et al. 2021).Our concept of the species, in addition to the holotype, is based on just the two other females that are discussed under “Variation”, plus two males. This is the first time males have been described and illustrated for the species, but too few are known to reliably estimate infraspecific variation, and thus which features reliably differentiate all males from those of other species. However, both males are similar to females in lacking differentiated adnotaular and inner regions of the axillae (Fig. 56A). Both males have the plical and bare parts of the callar region coarsely sculptured, with the bare part of the callar region distinctly punctate-reticulate (Fig. 56B) to rugulose (Fig. 56C), though development of the adpetiolar strip varies (cf. Fig. 56A,B). The two males also have mesh like sculpture on Gt 5 and Gt 6, but this is distinctly reticulate in one male (Fig. 56E) and much finer, more coriaceous-imbricate (Fig. 56F) in the other. Although a relative feature, the males have comparatively larger punctures on the frontovertex than those of other regional species (e.g. cf. Figs 55F, 60D). In colour, the two males are more similar to 2024-059, but more colourful males with distinct facial bands may be found in the future if some are more similar to 2024-058. Further, the bare part of the callar region could be more finely sculptured than for the two known males if some more closely resemble 2024-058. Presence of microcoriaceous subsculpture on the interstices of the mesoscutellum (Fig. 56C) also helps differentiate known males from those of the other common Palaearctic species, C. sinaiticus (Fig. 61C,D), though very few males of both species are known.

Podobne knjige/članki