Acroclisoides sinicus
| Notice: | This page is derived from the original publication listed below, whose author(s) should always be credited. Further contributors may edit and improve the content of this page and, consequently, need to be credited as well (see page history). Any assessment of factual correctness requires a careful review of the original article as well as of subsequent contributions.
If you are uncertain whether your planned contribution is correct or not, we suggest that you use the associated discussion page instead of editing the page directly. This page should be cited as follows (rationale):
Citation formats to copy and paste
BibTeX: @article{Peverieri2019JournalofHymenopteraResearch74, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Peverieri2019Journal of Hymenoptera Research74">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Hymenoptera
Genus: Acroclisoides
Name
Acroclisoides sinicus (Huang & Liao, 1988) – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Neocoruna sinica Huang & Liao, 1988: 427.
- Acroclisoides sinicus (Huang & Liao, 1988); new combination by Xiao and Huang (2000)[1]: 95.
- Acroclisoides solus Grissell & Smith, 2006: 925; syn. nov.
Diagnosis
BOTH SEXES: clypeal margin emarginate (Figs 2B, 3B, D); antenna with F6 whitish, occasionally also F5, the latter especially in males (Figs 2E, 3B, D); MV 0.9–1.1× SV and distinctly shorter than PV (Fig. 2D). FEMALE: fore wing usually with brownish infuscated spot, ranging from faint to pronounced, behind SV; spot round to oval and not projecting beyond SV (Figs 2D, 3A). MALE: fore wing always hyaline (Fig. 3C).
Description
Female (Figs 2A–G, 3A, B). Body length. 1.7–2.5 mm (n = 10). Color. Head in frontal view bright green, with golden reflections (Figs 2B, 3B); frons, vertex and occiput dark olive-green (Fig. 2C, F). Antenna (Figs 2E, 3B) with scape and pedicel yellowish-brown; funicle and clava brown to dark brown, except F6 and sometimes ventral side of F5 whitish. Mandible with basal half whitish-yellow to yellowish-brown, distal half including teeth reddish-brown (Figs 2B, 3B). Mesosoma in dorsal view mainly dark olive-green (Fig. 2F); mesosoma in lateral view dark blue-green (Fig. 2G). Legs (Fig. 3A) with fore and hind coxae dark green at least dorsally, apices and sometimes ventral part yellowish to yellowish-brown; mid coxa mainly yellowish-brown, basally and dorsally at least slightly darker; the rest of leg parts yellowish-brown, except tarsal apices dark brown. Fore wing hyaline, usually with distinct brownish spot behind SV, which may be very faint or absent to very distinct (Figs 2D, 3A); hind wing hyaline (Fig. 3A); tegula and venation dark brown. Metasoma with petiole black; gaster mainly dark metallic green to brown (Figs 2A, 3A).
Head. Clypeus broadly emarginate (Fig. 2B). Occipital carina (Fig. 2C) ventrally terminating in a conspicuous tooth, visible in lateral view of the head (Fig. 2G). Antennal scrobes conspicuous, separated by interantennal crest not reaching median ocellus (Fig. 2B). Clypeal region striate-reticulate; face reticulate, alveolae getting smaller towards vertex (Fig. 2B). Width of head in frontal view about 1.6× height; in dorsal view width 2.05–2.40× length. OOL 1.4–1.6× POL. Minimum distance between eyes 2.3–2.4× eye height. In lateral view eye height 1.1–1.2× length and 1.6–1.7× malar space. In dorsal view of the head temple about 1/3 eye length or slightly less. Mandibles with 4 teeth each (Fig. 2B). Antenna with scape in lateral view gradually widening distally and reaching above level of vertex; both anelli transverse; all funicular segments longer than wide (Fig. 2E). Scape length 4.8–5.0× width. Pedicel length 1.2–1.4× width in lateral view. F1 length 1.6–1.8× width, length 1.1–1.6× pedicel length; F6 length 1.3–1.4× width; clava length 2.7–3.0× width, slightly longer than F5+F6.
Mesosoma. Pronotal collar posterior to setal row smooth. Mesoscutum and scutellum strongly and uniformly reticulate (Fig. 2F). Axillae with fine reticulation. Anterior margin of mesoscutellum separated from posterior margin of mesoscutum by several deep pits (Fig. 2F). Metascutellum virtually smooth (Fig. 2F). Propodeum (Fig. 2F) with small round basal foveae and median carina vaguely indicated, the latter extending to distinct, almost smooth nucha; median area centrally reticulate and almost smooth laterally, adjacent to conspicuous postspiracular sulci, the latter strongly convergent towards nucha; callus mainly smooth except superficially reticulate above hind coxa, with few setae. Mesepisternum reticulate; upper mesepimeron smooth, lower mesepimeron reticulate (Fig. 2G). Metapleuron reticulate. Hind coxa with dorsal basal setae extremely long. Mesosoma length 1.10–1.15× width, length 1.4–1.5× height. Mesoscutum width 2.3–2.4× length. Scutellum width 1.0–1.1× length. Propodeum median length about 0.60× scutellum length. Fore wing (Fig. 2D) with MV moderately thickened; parastigma with hyaline break; costal cell on dorsal side of the wing with single row of setae in distal half, on ventral side with several rows of setae in distal half and single anterior row extending to base; basal cell with several scattered setae and delimited by completely setose basal and cubital folds; speculum moderate, not extending beyond parastigma and closed below. Fore wing length 1.9–2.0× width. SM 3.0–3.9× MV. MV 0.9–1.1× SV. PV about 1.6× MV.
Metasoma. Dorsally flat or convex (Figs 2A, 3A). Petiole (MT1) subtriangular, about as long as wide; GT1 (MT2) long and narrow, occupying 1/3–1/4 of gaster length (Fig. 3A); GT2–4 trapezoidal, GT4 the largest; GT2 longer than GT3 and shorter than GT4; GT5–7 very short, partly to completely retracted; hypopygium extending to about 0.8–0.9× of gaster length; ovipositor sheaths short and visible only on ventral side of gaster (Fig. 3A). Gaster length 1.4–2.0× width.
Male (Fig. 3C, D). Similar to the female, it differs in having the fore wing entirely hyaline (see also the remarks below).
Remarks
Acroclisoides sinicus, together with A. maculatus Sureshan & Narendran, A. megacephalus Girault & Dodd and A. spilopterus (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), belongs to a group normally having maculate fore wings in females. Acroclisoides sinicus can be separated from the other species cited above by the whitish color of F6, sometimes also of F5, the latter especially in males (color also slightly variable, but at least on the ventral side of the antenna the segment is slightly to distinctly lighter than other segments) and different shape, size and position of the brownish spot on the fore wing in females (usually at least slightly visible, of small to moderate size, behind the stigmal vein and not projecting beyond it). According to the original description of A. solus and the paratypes we examined, this species is extremely close to A. sinicus in most characters, including the color of the funicle and fore wing. According to Grissell and Smith (2006)[2], both sexes of A. solus differ from A. sinicus only in having a longer PV as compared with the MV (over 1.6× versus less than 1.4× in A. sinicus); in addition, the female of A. solus has a longer F1 as compared with the pedicel (2× versus slightly longer than pedicel in A. sinicus), clava slightly longer than F5+F6 versus clava longer than F4+F6 in A. sinicus, and the flagellar setae are depressed versus outstanding in A. sinicus. In our specimens from Italy and South Korea (MICO), PV was about 1.6× as long as MV; F1 was 1.1–1.6× as long as the pedicel; clava was slightly longer than F5+F6; flagellar setae were moderately depressed. All examined specimens fit well with the original description of A. sinicus (Huang & Liao, 1988).
Males and females of A. sinicus are very similar. The brownish infuscation of the fore wing is found only in females but is not always present. This character can thus be used to confirm that a specimen is female, but the absence of the infuscation cannot be used to reliably determine that a specimen is male. The presence of an ovipositor, ovipositor sheaths or a projecting aedeagus can be used to confirm the sex. In cases where the terminal gastral tergites are retracted and the wings are hyaline, unambiguous determination of sex may require dissection to expose the genitalia.
Distribution
China (Huang and Liao 1988[3]; Xiao and Huang 2000[1]), South Korea (Ko et al. 2018[4]), Canada, USA, Italy, Switzerland; previously recorded for Italy, USA and Canada as A. solus (Grissell and Smith 2006[2]; Gariepy et al. 2014[5]; Moraglio et al. 2019[6]).
Taxon Treatment
- Peverieri, G; Mitroiu, M; Bon, M; Balusu, R; Benvenuto, L; Bernardinelli, I; Fadamiro, H; Falagiarda, M; Fusu, L; Grove, E; Haye, T; Hoelmer, K; Lemke, E; Malossini, G; Marianelli, L; Moore, M; Pozzebon, A; Roversi, P; Scaccini, D; Shrewsbury, P; Tillman, G; Tirello, P; Waterworth, R; Talamas, E; 2019: Surveys of stink bug egg parasitism in Asia, Europe and North America, morphological taxonomy, and molecular analysis reveal the Holarctic distribution of Acroclisoides sinicus (Huang & Liao) (Hymenoptera, Pteromalidae) Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 74: 123-151. doi
Images
|
Other References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Xiao H, Huang D (2000) Taxonomic studies on genus Acroclisoides Girault and Dodd from China (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae).Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica25(1): 98–99.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Grissell E, Smith D (2006) First report of Acroclisoides Girault and Dodd (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in the Western Hemisphere, with description of a new species.Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington108(4): 923–929.
- ↑ Huang D, Liao D (1988) A new genus and a new species of Pteromalidae (HymenopteraChalcidoidea).Acta Entomologica Sinica31(4): 426–428.
- ↑ Ko G, Park D, Lee J (2018) Taxonomic review of subfamily Pteromalinae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) with 25 newly recorded species in South Korea. Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 11(2018): 87e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japb.2017.08.006
- ↑ Gariepy T, Haye T, Zhang J (2014) A molecular diagnostic tool for the preliminary assessment of host-parasitoid associations in biological control programmes for a new invasive pest.Molecular Ecology23: 3912–3924. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.12515
- ↑ Moraglio S, Tortorici F, Pansa M, Castelli G, Pontini M, Scovero S, Visentin S, Tavella L (2019) A 3year survey on parasitism of Halyomorpha halys by egg parasitoids in northern Italy.Journal of Pest Science92: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01136-2
