Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:22:11.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVIDENCE FOR MONOPHYLY AND RELATIONSHIPS OF CHALCIDOIDEA, MYMARIDAE, AND MYMAROMMATIDAE (HYMENOPTERA: TEREBRANTES)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Gary A.P. Gibson
Gary A.P. Gibson
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty-three characters or character systems of adults and larvae of Terebrantes are analyzed for evidence of monophyly and phyletic relationships of Chalcidoidea, Mymaridae, and Mymarommatidae. The taxa are considered to be a monophyletic group based on 3 hypothesized synapomorphies: mesotrochanteral depressor without fu2-tr2 or mesoscutal portion of t2-tr2; axillar phragma as site of origin for all or part of t,-tr2 muscle; and independent basal ring absent from male genitalia. The family Mymaridae is considered to be monophyletic based on at least 3 apomorphies: fore wing with hypochaeta; head with frontal, median, and supraorbital sulci; and toruli distinctly closer to inner margin of eye than to each other. Chalcidoidea, including Mymaridae, is considered to be a monophyletic taxon based on 3 apomorphies: prepectus externally visible, at least dorsally adjacent to lateral edge of mesoscutum; mesothoracic spiracle positioned at exposed lateral edge of mesoscutum; and multiporous plate sensilla of antenna with unique structure, as described in text. Mymarommatidae is considered to be the monophyletic sister group of Chalcidoidea based on several apomorphies, including 4 autapomorphies: head composed of frontal and occipital sclerites, which are connected by pleated membrane along hyperoccipital region; hind wing stalk-like, without membrane and terminated in bifurcation that clasps fore wing; fore wing with reticulate pattern formed by raised lineations of membrane; and axillar portion of t2-tr2 muscle absent. Phyletic relationship of Serphitidae with Mymarommatidae is deemed inconclusive because relevant internal character states of amber fossil serphitids cannot be determined. It is suggested that mymarommatids be accorded family status, but not be assigned to superfamily until phyletic relationships are more accurately determined in Terebrantes. A matrix summarizes character-state distribution of most characters analyzed for Terebrantes, and a cladogram illustrates hypotheses of character-state evolution and proposed relationships.

Résumé

L’ouvrage analyse 23 caractères ou systèmes de caractères d’adultes et de larves de Térébrantes pour l’existence de rapports monophyliques et phylétiques des Chalcidoidea, Mymaridae et Mymarommatidae. Les taxons sont considérés comme un groupe monophylétique fondé sur 3 synapomorphies hypothétiques, soit le dépresseur mésotrochantéral sans fu2-tr2 ou la portion mésoscutale de t2-tr2, du phragme axillaire comme point d’origine pour la totalité ou une partie du muscle t2-tr2 et l’absence d’anneau basal indépendant des génitalia mâles. La famille des Mymaridae est considérée comme monophylétique fondée sur au moins 3 apomorphies, soit l’aile antérieure pourvue d’un hypochète, la tête dotée de sillons frontaux, médians et supraorbitaux et des toruli distinctement plus rapprochés de la bordure interne de l’oeil que l’un par rapport à l’autre. Les Chalcidoidea, y compris les Mymaridae, sont considérés comme un taxon monophylétique fondé sur 3 apomorphies, soit un prépectus visible de l’extérieur (au moins dorsalement voisin du bord latéral du mésoscutum), des stigmates mésothoraciques situés sur le bord latéral exposé de mésoscutum et des sensilles placoïdes multipores d’antenne à structure unique comme le décrit le texte. Les Mymarommatidae sont considérés comme un groupe soeur monophylétique des Chalcidoidea d’après plusieurs apomorphies, y compris 4 autapomorphies, soit la tête composée d’un sclérite frontal et occipital reliés par une membrane plissée le long de la région hyperoccipitale, une aile postérieure pédonculée sans membrane et terminée par une bifurcation qui vient s’agraffer sur l’aile antérieure, une aile antérieure réticulée formée par des lignes soulevées de la membrane et l’absence de portion axillaire du muscle t2-tr2. Le rapport phylétique des Serphitidae avec les Mymarommatidae est jugé peu concluant car il est impossible de déterminer l’état de caractères internes pertinents de Serphitidés fossilisés dans l’ambre. Il est proposé d’accorder le statut de famille aux Mymarommatidés, mais de ne pas leur attribuer de superfamille avant d’avoir mieux défini les rapports phylétiques des Térébrantes. Un tableau résume la distribution de la plupart des caractères examinés pour les Térébrantes et un cladogramme illustre certaines hypothèses d’évolution de l’état des caractères et des rapports proposés.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 3 , March 1986 , pp. 205 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annecke, D.P., and Doutt, R.L.. 1961. The genera of the Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Dep. Agric. Tech. Serv. Ent. Mem., Pretoria 5: 1–77.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1896. The phylogeny of the Hymenoptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 3: 323–336.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies. Mem. Carneg. Mus. 1(4): 1–532.Google Scholar
Austin, A.D. 1983. Morphology and mechanics of the ovipositor system of Ceratobaeus Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) and related genera. Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 12: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakkendorf, O. 1934. Biological investigations on some Danish hymenopterous egg-parasites, especially in homopterous and heteropterous eggs, with taxonomic remarks and descriptions of new species. Ent. Meddr 19: 1–134.Google Scholar
Barlin, M.R., and Vinson, S.B.. 1981. Multiporous plate sensillum in antennae of the Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 10: 29–42.Google Scholar
Blood, B.N., and Kryger, J.P.. 1922. A new mymarid from Brockenhurst. Entomologist's mon. Mag. (ser. 3) 58: 229–230.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1974. A revision of the Leucospidae of the world. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.), Suppl. 23. 240 pp.Google Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1978. A generic key to Perilampinae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea), with a revision of Krombeinius n. gen. and Euperilampus Walker. Ent. Scand. 9: 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouček, Z. 1984. A new eulophid genus (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) with exodont mandibles. Boll. Lab. Ent. agric. Filippo Silvestri 41: 65–70.Google Scholar
Bradley, J.C. 1955. The wing-venation of Chalcidoidea and of some allied Hymenoptera. Mém. Soc. r. ent. Belg. 27: 127–137.Google Scholar
Bradley, J.C. 1958. The phylogeny of the Hymenoptera. Proc. X Int. Congr. Ent., Montreal (1956) 1: 265–269.Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1910. The parasitic Hymenoptera of the Tertiary of Florissant, Colorado. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 54: 1–125.Google Scholar
Brues, C.T., Melander, A.L., and Carpenter, F.M.. 1954. Classification of insects. Keys to the living and extinct families of insects, and to the living families of other terestrial arthropods. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. 108: 1–917.Google Scholar
Bucher, G.E. 1948. The anatomy of Monodontomerus dentipies Boh., an entomophagous chalcid. Can. J. Res. (D) 26: 230–281.Google Scholar
Clausen, C.P. 1940. Entomophagous Insects. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 688 pp.Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, C.G. 1898. Catalogous Hymenopterorum 5. Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. Englemann, Leipzig. 598 pp.Google Scholar
Daly, H.V. 1964. Skeleto-muscular morphogenesis of the thorax and wings of the honey bee Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Univ. Calif. Publ. Ent. 39: 1–77.Google Scholar
Darling, D.C. 1983. A review of the new world species of Euperilampus (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), with notes about host associations and phylogenetic relationships. Quaest. Ent. 19: 1–40.Google Scholar
Debauche, H.R. 1948. Étude sur les Mymarommidae et les Mymaridae de la Belgique (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Mém. Mus. r. Hist. nat. Belg. 108: 1–248.Google Scholar
Domenichini, G. 1953. Studio sulla morfologia dell'addome degli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea. Boll. Lab. Zool. agric. Bachic. R. 1st. sup. agric. Milano 19: 183–298.Google Scholar
Doutt, R.L. 1973. The fossil Mymaridae (Hymenoptera; Chalcidoidea). Pan-Pacif. 49: 221–228.Google Scholar
Doutt, R.L. and Viggiani, G.. 1968. The classification of the Trichogrammatidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (ser. 4) 35: 477–586.Google Scholar
Duisburg, V. 1868. Zur Bernstein-Fauna. Physikalisch-Ökonomische Gesellsch. Konigsberg Schrif. 9: 23–28.Google Scholar
Dzhanokmen, K.A. 1979. [On the problem of the number of joints in antennae in the Pteromalidae.] Zool. Zh. 58: 1744–1746. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Farish, D.J. 1972. The evolutionary implications of qualitative variation in the grooming behavior of the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Anim. Behav. 20: 662–676.Google Scholar
Fidalgo, A.P., and De Santis, L.. 1982. Una nueva especie Argentina de Mimarido de la subfamilia Mymaromminae (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Revta Mus. La Plata (n.s.) 13: 1–6.Google Scholar
Förster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien. 2. Heft. Chalcidiae und Proctotrupii. Achen. 152 pp.Google Scholar
Ghesquière, J. 1942. Contribution à l'étude des Hyménoptères du Congo Belge IX.-Remarques sur la famille des Mymarides et description d'espèces nouvelles. Revue Zool. Bot. afr. 36: 317–328.Google Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1985. Some pro- and mesothoracic characters important for phylogenetic analysis of Hymenoptera, with a review of terms used for the structures. Can. Ent. 117: 1395–1443.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1920. New genera and species of chalcid-flies from Australia. Insecutor Inscit. menstr. 8: 37–50.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1931. A new habit in an old insect, Homo pudicus and new Eurytomidae. Private Publ., Brisbane, 1 Sept. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Girault, A.A. 1935. Microhymenoptera Australiensis nova, mostly Chalcididae. Private Publ., Sydney, 25 April. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Gordh, G. 1979. Chalcidoidea. pp. 743–1043 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, B.Smith, D.R., and Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico, Vol. 1. Smithsonian Inst. Press. 1198 pp.Google Scholar
Graham, M.W.R. de V. 1969. The Pteromalidae of Northwestern Europe (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.), Suppl. 16. 908 pp.Google Scholar
Grandi, G. 1929. Studio morphologico e biologico della Blastophaga psenes (L.). Boll. Lab. Ent. R. 1st. sup. aric. Bologna 2: 1–147.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G.C.D. 1964. The Alysiinae (Hym. Braconidae) parasites of the Agromyzidae (Diptera). I. General questions of taxonomy, biology and evolution. Beitr. Ent. 14: 823–914.Google Scholar
Hecht, M.K. 1976. 7. Phylogenetic inference and methodology as applied to the vertebrate record. pp. 335–363 in Hecht, M.K., Steere, W.C., and Wallace, B. (Eds.). Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 9. Plenum Press, New York. 458 pp.Google Scholar
Jackson, D.J. 1961. Observations on the biology of Caraphractus cinctus Walker (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), a parasitoid of the eggs of Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). 2. Immature stages and seasonal history with a review of mymarid larvae. Parasitology 51: 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, H.C. 1926. The anatomy of a British phytophagous chalcidoid of the genus Harmolita (Isosoma). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1: 75–182.Google Scholar
Jong, R. de. 1980. Some tools for evolutionary and phylogenetic studies. Z. zool. Syst. Evolut.-forsch. 18: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Königsmann, E. 1978 a. Das phylogenetische System der Hymenoptera. Teil 3: “Terebrantes” (Unterordung Apocrita). Dt. ent. Z. (N.F.) 25: 1–55.Google Scholar
Königsmann, E. 1978 b. Das phylogenetische System der Hymenoptera. Teil 4: Aculeata (Unterordung Apocrita.). Dt. ent. Z. (N.F.) 25: 365–435.Google Scholar
Kozlov, M.A., and Rasnitsyn, A.P.. 1979. [On the limits of the family Serphitidae (Hymenoptera, Proctotrupoidea).] Ent. Obozr. 58: 402–416. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1961. Ambositrinae, a new subfamily of Diapriidae from Madagascar and central Africa. Mém. Inst. sci. Madagascar (Sér. E) 12: 289–295.Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1970. A new species of Nixonia Masner from Rhodesia (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 72: 90–93.Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1979. Pleural morphology in scelionid wasps (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) — An aid to higher classification. Can. Ent. 111: 1079–1087.Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1980. Key to genera of Scelionidae of the Holarctic region, with descriptions of new genera and species (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea). Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 113. 54 pp.Google Scholar
Mason, W.R.M. 1983. The abdomen of Vanhornia eucnemidarum (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea). Can. Ent. 115: 1483–1488.Google Scholar
Mason, W.R.M. 1984. Structure and movement of the abdomen of female Pelecinus polyturator (Hymenoptera: Pelecinidae). Can. Ent. 116: 419–426.Google Scholar
Mathot, G. 1966. Contribution à la connaissance des Mymaridae et Mymarommidae d'Afrique Centrale (Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea). Bull. Ann. Soc. r. ent. Belg. 102: 213–239.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. 1901. Contribution à la faune des Mymaridae ou “atomes ailés” de l'ambre. Ann. Soc. sci. Brux. 25: 282–292.Google Scholar
Miller, C.D.F. 1962. Some Nearctic species of the chalcid genus Enaysma Delucchi (Eulophidae: Entodontinae). Can. Ent. 94: 1039–1052.Google Scholar
Nagarkatti, S., and Nagaraja, H.. 1968. Biosystematic studies on Trichogramma species: I. Experimental hybridization between Trichogramma australicum Girault, T. evanescens Westwood and T. minutum Riley. Tech. Bull. Commonw. Inst. biol. Control 10: 81–96.Google Scholar
Naumann, I.D. 1982. Systematics of the Australian Ambositrinae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), with a synopsis on non-Australian genera of subfamily. Aust. J. Zool., Suppl. 85. 239 pp.Google Scholar
Nikolskaya, M.N. 1952. The chalcid fauna of the USSR. (Translated from Russian by Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1963. Jerusalem. 593 pp).Google Scholar
Nikolskaya, M.N. 1960. Chal'cidy sem. Chalcididae i Leucospidae. In Fauna SSSR, Pereponcatokrylye, 7(5). Moskova, Leningrad, 221S.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1936. New parasite Hymenoptera from Africa (Proctotrupoidea, Subfam. Telenominae). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 10) 17: 558–564.Google Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1937. New Asiatic Telenominae (Hym.: Proctotrupoidea). Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 10) 10: 113–127.Google Scholar
Ogloblin, A.A. 1959. La estructura cefálica de los representantes de la familia Mymaridae (Hymenoptera). Actas y Trabajos del Primer Congreso Sudamericano de Zoología, La Plata, 12–24 Oct. 1959. Vol. 3. pp. 109–115.Google Scholar
Quinlan, J. 1979. A revisonary classificaton of the Cynipoidea (Hymenoptera) of the Ethiopian Region. Aspicerinae (Figitidae) and Oberthuerellinae (Liopteridae). Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) 39: 85–133.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A.P. 1980. [Origin and evolution of Hymenoptera.] Trudȳ paleont. Inst. 174: 1–190. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Riek, E.F. 1970. Hymenoptera. pp. 867–959, in The insects of Australia. CSIRO, Melbourne University Press, Carlton. 1029 pp.Google Scholar
Ritchie, A.J., and Masner, L.. 1983. Revision of the Nearctic species of Baryconus. (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae, Scelioninae). Can. J. Zool. 61: 704–720.Google Scholar
Schauff, M.E. 1984. The Holarctic genera of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Mem. ent. Soc. Wash. 12: 67 pp.Google Scholar
Schauff, M.E. 1985. The new world genus Paracrias Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 87: 98–109.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, R.E. 1941. The male genitalia of Hymenoptera. Smithson. misc. Coll. 99(14). 86 pp. + 33 pls.Google Scholar
Stein, J.P.E.F. 1877. Drie merkwüdige Berstein-Insekten. Mitt. munch. ent. Ver. 1: 28–30.Google Scholar
Townes, H., and Townes, M.. 1981. A revision of the Serphidae (Hymenoptera). Mem. Am. ent. Inst. 32: 1–541.Google Scholar
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1977. [The characteristic features of the morphology of adult encyrtids (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Encyrtidae) and their systematic significance.] Trudȳ vses. ént. Obshch. 58: 145–199. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Valentine, E.W. 1971. Entomology of the Aucklands and other islands south of New Zealand: Hymenoptera: Mymaridae. Pacif. Ins. Monogr. 27: 327–333.Google Scholar
van Achterberg, C. 1984. Essay on the phylogeny of Braconidae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonoidea). Ent. Tidskr. 105: 41–58.Google Scholar
Vasey, C.E. 1974. The evolution of male genitalia in Nearctic Hymenoptera, excluding the Aculeata. Ph.D. Diss., State Univ. of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY. 292 pp.Google Scholar
Viggiani, G. 1973. Ricerche sugli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea XXXIX. Notizie preliminari sulla structura e sul significato dell'armatura genitale esterna machile dei Mimaridi. Boll. Lab. Ent. agric. Filippo Silvestri 30: 269–281.Google Scholar
Viggiani, G. 1978. Ricerche sugli Hymenoptera Chalcidoidea LVII. Materiali per una revisone del genere Oligosita Walker (Trichogrammatidae). 2. Sensilli antennali. Boll. Lab. Ent. agric. Filippo Silvestri 34: 217–222.Google Scholar
Weld, L.H. 1952. Cynipoidea (Hym.) 1905–1950. Private Publ., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 351 pp.Google Scholar
Wharton, R. 1977. Exodontiellini, a new tribe of Opiinae with exodont mandibles (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Pan-Pacif. 53: 297–303.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M. 1975. Cretaceous chalcidoid fossils from Canadian amber. Can. Ent. 107: 499–528.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M. 1977. The North American species of the genus Achrysocharoides (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Can. Ent. 109: 907–930.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M. 1978. Revision of the subgenus Achrysocharella Girault of America north of Mexico (Chalcidoidea, Eulophidae: Chrysonotomyia Ashmead). Can. Ent. 110: 697–719.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M. 1984. The insects and arachnids of Canada. Part 12. The families and subfamilies of Canadian chalcidoid wasps. Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea. Agric. Can. Publ. 1760. 149 pp.Google Scholar
Yoshimoto, C.M., Kozlov, M.A., and Trjapitzin, V.A.. 1972. [A new subfamily of Mymaridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea).] Ent. Obozr. 51: 878–885. (In Russian, English translation: Ent. Rev. 57: 521–525)Google Scholar