Basalys rufocinctus
| 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{Hübner2023ZooKeys1183, RIS/ Endnote: TY - JOUR Wikipedia/ Citizendium: <ref name="Hübner2023ZooKeys1183">{{Citation See also the citation download page at the journal. |
Ordo: Hymenoptera
Familia: Diapriidae
Genus: Basalys
Name
Basalys rufocinctus (Kieffer, 1911) – Wikispecies link – Pensoft Profile
- Loxotropa longiceps Wasmann, 1909: 68, 172, syn. nov., preoccupied nec B. longiceps (Ashmead, 1893).
- Geodiapria longiceps Kieffer, 1911a: 897, syn. nov., preoccupied nec B. longiceps (Ashmead, 1893).
- [[ | ]] Loxotropa rufocinсta Kieffer, 1911b: 916, 939 takes precedence over L. rufosignata by first revisor action.
- Loxotropa rufosignata Kieffer, 1911b: 914, syn. nov.
BIN number
BOLD_BIN: AEW6196 (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007[1]).
Type material
Holotype ♀ of Loxotropa longiceps labelled: “Allotype ♂ (!)/ Solenopsia imitatrix/ Wasmann, err. det.!; Holotype ♀/ Geodiapria longiceps/ Kieffer, 1911; Loxotropa/ longiceps n. sp./ ♀ Kieff.; 5.98. Exaet./ b. Solenopsis; Solenopsis m/ Kol. 293. sang [=colony #293 of Formica sanguinea].” (NHME) (Fig. 2). Holotype ♀ of Geodiapria longiceps - the same specimen as the holotype of Loxotropa longiceps q.v. Holotype ♀ of Loxotropa rufosignata labelled: “Is. Giglio/ IV.1902/ G. Doria; Loxotropa/ rufosignata; ♀” (MCSN) (Fig. 3). Syntypes 2♀ 3♂ of Loxotropa rufocinсta: 2♀ labelled: “Holotype [sic – there is no original designation]; Bitche; Loxotropa/ rufocincta; Muséum Paris/ 1957/ coll. Kieffer. 2♂ labelled: Loxotropa/ rufocincta; Bitche; ♂; Allotype; Muséum Paris/ 1957/ coll. Kieffer. ♂ labelled: Paratype; Muséum Paris/ 1957/ coll. Kieffer; Bitche” (MNHN).
Other material
Denmark • ♀; N. E. Zealand, Tisvilde Hegn; 56°02'N, 12°04'E; 4 May 1994; P.N. Buhl leg. (DNPC). France • ♂; Corsica, Corse du Sud, Bastelicaccia nr. Ajaccio;41°55'N, 08°30'E; 14–21 Jun. 1996; C. Villemant leg.; Malaise trap, Quercus suber stand (DNPC) • ♀; Gard, Mont Ventoux, Malaucène; 44°13'N, 05°08'E; 1–8 Jul. 1997; C. Villemant leg.; maquis, Quercus ilex (DNPC) • ♂; same locality; 5–12 Aug. 1997; C. Villemant leg.; maquis, Quercus ilex (DNPC). Germany • ♀; Bavaria, Dammbach, Dammbachtal; 49°51′58″N, 09°19′30″E; 338 m a.s.l.; 16 Jul. 2021; J. Hübner leg.; nutrient poor grassland; ZSM-HYM-42434-GO2 (BOLDSYSTEMS Process ID: DTIII5299-22; GenBank accession ID: OR450821) (SNSB-ZSM) • ♀ same locality; 16 Jul. 2021; J. Hübner leg.; nutrient poor grassland; ZSM-HYM-42433-H11 (BOLDSYSTEMS Process ID: DTIII5225-22; GenBank accession ID: OR450822) (DNPC). Norway • ♀; Onsøy, Hankø Bloksberg, EIS 20, Ø; 3–29 Jun. 1995; O. Hanssen & J.I.I. Båtvik leg.;pitfall trap (DNPC). Spain • ♀; Granada, Calahonda; Jul. 1987; L. Lockey leg.; Malaise trap, (DNPC) • ♀; Granada, Sierra Nevada; 1600 m a.s.l.; 10 Apr. 1959; C. Besuchet leg. (NHMUK). United Kingdom • ♀; Cheshire, Abbotts Moss; 53°12′27″N, 02°36′23″W; 12 Oct. 1990; D.G. Notton leg.; swept, stream (DNPC) • 3♀; Norfolk, Santon Downham; 52°27′45″N, 00°40′29″E; 15 Aug. 1984; J. Field leg.; Malaise trap, heath with Betula and Pinus (DNPC) • 1♂; same locality; 18–25 Aug. 1983; J. Field leg. (DNPC).
Diagnosis
Female Head elongate, rounded, about 1.2 times as long as wide; frons without angles or teeth; antenna 12-segmented with abrupt 3-segmented clava; A11 transverse in lateral view, as long as wide in dorsal view; A6–A9 transverse in lateral view (Fig. 1A); mesonotum and scutellum slightly convex in longer winged individuals, almost flat in shorter winged individuals (Fig. 1B), anterior pronotum with a ruff of whitish setae; anterior scutellar pit small and transverse, less than one third the width of the scutellum; propodeum with medial keel slightly raised anteriorly, less so in short winged individuals; fore wing variable in length, at most extending well beyond apex of gaster, at least reaching anterior margin of petiole; basal vein present in longer winged individuals although hard to see as it is fine and barely pigmented, absent in shorter winged individuals; femora of all legs broadened medially, fore femora 2.2–2.3 times as long as wide in lateral view, with sharp keel ventrally; petiole densely covered dorsally and laterally with long orange flattened setae (Fig. 1D); basal margin of large tergite with two whitish hair tufts more or less concealed under petiolar setae; disc of large tergite normally bare, although the shortest winged individuals, e.g. the type of L. rufosignata, may have some long setae. Male As for female except antenna 14-segmented with A4 expanded posteriorly subtriangular with a fine flange; A5 elongate, flagellar segments becoming shorter towards apex, A13 more or less quadrate; fore wing variable in length at least reaching apex of gaster, at most extending well beyond it; basal vein present, fine, barely pigmented; femora slightly less broadened than female. Body length 1.3–2.2 mm (♀); 1.5–2.4 mm (♂).
Distribution
Czechia (Macek 1989[2] as B. rufocincta [sic]); Denmark (Buhl 1998[3] as B. rufocincta [sic]) confirmed here; France - mainland France (Kieffer 1911b[4] as L. rufocincta) confirmed here; France - Corsica (new record); Germany (new record); Italy (Kieffer 1911b[4] as L. rufosignata); Netherlands (Wasmann 1909[5] as L. longiceps); Norway (new record); Spain (new record); Sweden (Hedqvist 2007[6] as B. ruficincta [sic]); United Kingdom (Nixon 1980[7] as B. rufocincta [sic]) confirmed here.
Biology
Host unknown. Basalys rufocinctus has previously been considered to be a myrmecophile but the evidence is weak. Of all the specimens we have seen only one, Wasmann’s, was found in an ant nest, in a mixed colony of Solenopsis fugax and Formica sanguinea, and may have entered the nest by accident. Wasmann provided no ethological observations to demonstrate myrmecophily and the species has no obvious morphological adaptation for myrmecophily when compared to other Basalys.
Remarks
From the extensive material examined we recognised only one taxon, diagnosed above, and with more variation than previously understood. Most importantly we found that the head was always elongate when seen from above, also significant variation in fore wing length, and expression of the basal vein which was present and weakly pigmented in longer winged individuals, becoming hyaline and then altogether absent in shorter winged individuals. This taxon is therefore a Basalys since there is no significant morphological difference: some other species of Basalys are known to have elongate heads, also some other Basalys have the basal vein absent in short-winged individuals. Based on our examination of the type specimens we consider all four nominal species above, including Geodiapria longiceps, belong to this taxon.
Further support for the generic placement of B. rufocinctus is based on genetic analyses. A representative ML tree (Appendix 1; Idiotypa maritima (Haliday, 1833) as outgroup, 1000 generations) with 76 Diapriini specimens shows B. rufocinctus nested within a Basalys clade (Appendix 1). The obtained sequences are publicly available on the BOLDSYSTEMS platform (Ratnasingham and Hebert 2007[1]).
Some nomenclatural notes are necessary: We differ from some authors in recognising
Loxotropa longiceps as a nominal species separate from, and not just a combination of,
Geodiapria longiceps.
Loxotropa longiceps is available from Wasmann’s (1909)[5] paper where the name is first used. The name is made available by indication (ICZN 1999: Code art. 12.2.1) since Wasmann refers to his description (Wasmann, 1899) of a specimen previously misidentified as a male of
Solenopsia imitatrix Wasmann, 1899. Although Wasmann attributes the name to Kieffer, the author of the name is actually Wasmann because he was responsible for publishing the name and writing the prior description (ICZN 1999: Code art. 50.1). The oldest available name for the taxon is thus
L. longiceps Wasmann, 1909.
As
L. longiceps is transferred to
Basalys it becomes a secondary junior homonym of
B. longiceps (Ashmead, 1893) so is invalid.
The next oldest available name is
G. longiceps described as new by Kieffer (1911a)[8]. The date of publication is early 1911: evidence comes from the NHMUK copy which has a library stamp 25 Feb. 1911, and the page bound into the end of vol. 10 of
Species des Hyménoptères d’Europe et d’Algérie which says 1 Mar. 1911.
As
G. longiceps is transferred to
Basalys it becomes a secondary junior homonym of
B. longiceps (Ashmead, 1893) so is invalid.
The next oldest available names are
L. rufosignata Kieffer, 1911b and
L. rufocincta Kieffer, 1911b which were published simultaneously in mid-1911: the page bound into the end of vol. 10 of
Species des Hyménoptères d’Europe et d’Algérie says 1 Jun. 1911.
Since the only two remaining potentially valid names are published simultaneously, we here make a first revisor action to determine precedence thus:
L. rufocincta has precedence over
L. rufosignata. We have chosen
L. rufocincta because this is the more widely used name.
L. longiceps,
G. longiceps and
L. rufosignata are all new synonyms of
L. rufocincta.
The valid name is thus
Basalys rufocinctus, a combination first recognised by Nixon (1980)[7].
Despite previous misspellings, when in combination with
Basalys, the correct spelling of the species epithet is
rufocinctus; the gender of
Basalys is masculine (Notton (2014)[9].
Taxon Treatment
- Hübner, J; Chemyreva, V; Notton, D; 2023: Taxonomic and nomenclatural notes on Geodiapria longiceps Kieffer, 1911 (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae) and synonymy of the genus Geodiapria Kieffer, 1910 ZooKeys, 1183: 1-11. doi
Images
|
Other References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Ratnasingham S, Hebert P (2007) BOLD: The Barcode of Life Data System (http://www.barcodinglife.org). Molecular Ecology Notes 7(3): 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x
- ↑ Macek J (1989) Proctotrupoidea, Ceraphronoidea. In: Šedivý J (Ed.) Enumeratio insectorum Bohemoslovakiae: Check List of Czechoslovak Insects III (Hymenoptera).Acta Faunistica Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 135–142.
- ↑ Buhl P (1998) Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) from different habitats at the Mols Laboratory area, Jutland, Denmark.Natura Jutlandica23(7): 79–90.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Kieffer J (1911b) Proctotrypidæ. In: André E (Ed.) Species des Hyménoptères d’Europe et d’Algérie.Vol. 10. Hermann et Fils, Paris, 913–1015.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Wasmann E (1909) Die psychischen Fähigkeiten der Ameisen. Mit einem Ausblick auf die vergleichende Tierpsychologie, Zweite bedeutend vermehrte Auflage, Zoologica 11 (26): i–xi, 1–190. [5 pls]
- ↑ Hedqvist K (2007) A provincial catalogue of Swedish Proctotrupoidea. Entomologisk Tidskrift 128(3): 113–126. InkScape version 1.1. https://inkscape.org/de/
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Nixon G (1980) Diapriidae (Diapriinae) Hymenoptera, Proctotrupoidea. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects 8(3di): 1–55.
- ↑ Kieffer J (1911a) Proctotrypidæ. In: André E (Ed.) Species des Hyménoptères d’Europe et d’Algérie.Vol. 10. Hermann et Fils, Paris, 753–912.
- ↑ Notton D (2014) A catalogue of the types of Diapriinae (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae) at the Natural History Museum, London.European Journal of Taxonomy75(75): 1–123. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2014.75
