Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:11:48.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revision of the North American species of the genus Entomacis (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Matthew J. Yoder
Matthew J. Yoder*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2475, United States of America
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The species of the genus Entomacis Foerster in North America north of Mexico are revised. Nineteen species (12 new), including 8 species of the Holarctic-wide perplexa species group, are keyed, described, and figured. These taxa are E. ambigua (Brues), E. apopkaensissp. nov., E. arcticasp. nov., E. cellariasp. nov., E. cepasp. nov., E. eorariasp. nov., E. floridana (Ashmead), E. grandiclavasp. nov., E. longii (Ashmead), E. mellipetiola (Ashmead), E. parambiguasp. nov., and perplexa group members E. californica (Ashmead), E. microbipunctatasp. nov., E. notioxerasp. nov., E. oulasp. nov., E. parvasp. nov., E. perplexa (Haliday), E. sapratasp. nov., and E. subemarginata (Ashmead). Hemilexodes canadensis (Harrington) is synonymized under Entomacis mellipetiola (Ashmead) (syn. nov.). The status of Entomacis latipennis (Ashmead), E. filiformis (Ashmead), and Hemilexis jessei Mann is reviewed. New character complexes, particularly chaetotaxy, are emphasized for Diapriidae species taxonomy.

Résumé

La révision des espèces du genre Entomacis Foerster d'Amérique du Nord au nord du Mexique contient des clés d'identification, ainsi que les descriptions et les illustrations de dix-neuf espèces (dont 12 nouvelles), y compris les 8 espèces du groupe d'espèces de perplexa dont la répartition s'étend à toute la région holarctique. Ces taxons sont E. ambigua (Brues), E. apopkaensissp. nov., E. arcticasp. nov., E. cellariasp. nov., E. cepasp. nov., E. eorariasp. nov., E. floridana (Ashmead), E. grandiclavasp. nov., E. longii (Ashmead), E. mellipetiola (Ashmead), E. parambiguasp. nov., ainsi que les membres du groupe de perplexa, E. californica (Ashmead), E. microbipunctatasp. nov., E. notioxerasp. nov., E. oulasp. nov., E. parvasp. nov., E. perplexa (Haliday), E. sapratasp. nov. et E. subemarginata (Ashmead). Hemilexodes canadensis (Harrington) devient un synonyme d'Entomacis mellipetiola (Ashmead) (syn. nov.). Le statut d'Entomacis latipennis (Ashmead), celui d'E. filiformis (Ashmead) et celui d'Hemilexis jessei Mann sont revus. De nouveaux complexes de caractères, particulièrement de chétotaxie, sont mis en valeur dans la taxonomie des espèces de diapriidés.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 136 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 323 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2004

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

Ashmead, W.H. 1887. Studies of the North American Proctotrupidae, with descriptions of new species from Florida. The Canadian Entomologist 19: 192–8Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1893. A monograph of the North American Proctotrypidae. US National Museum Bulletin 45: 1–472Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1894. Report on the parasitic Cynipidae, part of the Braconidae, the Ichneumonidae, the Proctotrypidae, and part of the Chalcidinae. Part III. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 25: 188–254Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1902. A new genus of diapriids from Texas. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole) 3: 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlin, M.R. 1978. Multiporous plate sensilla in parasitic Hymenoptera: their ultrastructure and phylogenetic relationship. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TexasGoogle Scholar
Basibuyuk, H.H., Quicke, D.L.J. 1998. Gross morphology of multiporous plate sensilla in the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Zoologica Scripta 28: 51–67Google Scholar
Bin, F. 1981. Definition of female antennal clava based on its plate sensilla in Hymenoptera Scelionidae Telenominae. Redia 44: 245–61Google Scholar
Bin, F., Isidoro, N., Romani, R. 1991. Antennal structures of Hymenoptera: sensilla or glands? Atti dell'Accademia Nazional Italiana di Entomologia Rendiconti 47: 251–63Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1903. Descriptions of new ant-like and myrmecophilous Hymenoptera. Transactions of the American Entomological Society (Philadelphia) 29: 119–28Google Scholar
Brues, C.T. 1916. The Hymenoptera, or wasplike insects, of Connecticut — Serphoidea. pp 529–76 in Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin IIIGoogle Scholar
Dahl, F. 1912. Tierwelt. Beitraege Naturdenkmalpflege 3: 339–638Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, CG de. 1898. Catalogus hymenopterorum hucusque descriptiorum systematicus et synonymicus. Volume V. Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. Leipzig, Germany: Sumptibus Guilelmi EngelmannGoogle Scholar
Downes, J.A., Wirth, W.W. 1981. Chapter 28. Ceratopogonidae. pp 393–421in McAlpine, J.F., Petersen, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R., Wood, D.M. (Coordinators), Manual of Nearctic Diptera. Monograph 27. Volume 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Research Branch, Agriculture CanadaGoogle Scholar
Foerster, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische studien. II. Heft. Chalcidae und Prototrupii. Aachen, Germany: Ernst ter MeerGoogle Scholar
Gauld, I.D., Bolton, B. (Editors). 1988. The Hymenoptera. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1985. Some pro- and mesothoracic structures important for phylogenetic analysis of Hymenoptera, with review of terms used for their structures. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 1395–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, G.A.P. 1997. Chapter 2. Morphology and terminology. pp 16–44in Gibson, G.A.P., Huber, J.T., Woolley, J.B. (Eds), Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). Ottawa, Ontario: NRC Research PressGoogle Scholar
Haliday, A.H. 1857. Note on a peculiar form of the ovaries observed in a hymenopterous insect, constituting a new genus and species of the family Diapriidae. The Natural History Review: A Quarterly Journal of Zoology, Botany, Geology, and Palaeontology 4: 166–74Google Scholar
Harrington, W.H. 1900. Catalogue of Canadian Proctotrypidae. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 2: 169–206.Google Scholar
Hellén, W. 1963. Die Diapriinen Finnlands (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea). Fauna Fennica 14: 1–35Google Scholar
ICZN. 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. 4th edition. London, United Kingdom: The International Trust for Zoological NomenclatureGoogle Scholar
Isidoro, N., Bin, F., Colazza, S., Vinson, SB. 1996. Morphology of antennal gustatory sensilla and glands in some parasitoid Hymenoptera with hypothesis on their role in sex and host recognition. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 5: 206–39Google Scholar
Johnson, N. 1992. Catalog of world Proctotrupoidea excluding Platygasteridae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute (Gainesville) 51Google Scholar
Kieffer, J.J. 1911. Species des Hyménoptères d'Europe et d'Algerie. Volume 10. Paris, France: Librarie Scientifique A Hermann and FilsGoogle Scholar
Kieffer, J.J. 1912. Fam. Diapriidae. Genera insectorum 124. Bruxelles (Brussels), Belgium: V Verteneuil and L DesmetGoogle Scholar
Kieffer, J.J. 1916. Diapriidae. Das Tierreich. Volume 44. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter and CoGoogle Scholar
Kozlov, M.A. 1978. Superfamily Proctotrupoidea. pp 538–664in Medvedev, G.S. (Ed), Determination of insects of the European portion of the USSR 3, part 2. Leningrad, SSSR: Akadademiia Nauk Zoologicheskii Institut [translated from Russian by New Delhi, India: Amerind Publication Co]Google Scholar
Long, W.H. 1902. New species of Ceratopogon. Biological Bulletin (Woods Hole) 3: 15Google Scholar
Macek, J. 1994. The origin of the ventral bridge in Diapriidae (Hymenoptera, Procotrupoidea) with comments on morphology of head posterior. Folia Heyrovskyana 2: 21–6Google Scholar
Macek, J. 1995 a. Revision of the European species of Belyta Jurine. Acta Musei Nationalis Pragae, Series B, Historia Naturalis 51: 1–22Google Scholar
Macek, J. 1995 b. Revision of west Palearctic Lyteba Th. (= Oxlyabis auct.) (Hymenoptera: Proctorupoidea, Diapriidae). Folia Heyrovskyana 3: 29–39Google Scholar
Macek, J. 1997. Revision of central European species of Zygota (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) with description of new species and taxonomic remarks on the genus. Folia Heyrovskyana 5: 31–57Google Scholar
Macek, J. 1998. Revision of European species of Acropiesta (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae). Folia Heyrovskyana 6: 21–42Google Scholar
Macek, J. 2000. Revision of the genus Entomacis in Europe (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) with descriptions of new species. Folia Heyrovskyana 8: 119–26Google Scholar
Mann, W.M. 1914. Some myrmecophilous insects from Mexico. Psyche (Cambridge) 21: 172–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, T.A. 1873. A catalogue of British Hymenoptera; Oxyura. London, United Kingdom: Royal Entomological Society of LondonGoogle Scholar
Masner, L. 1964. A comparison of some Nearctic and Palearctic genera of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) with revisional notes. Acta Societatis Entomolgicae Cechosloveniae 61: 123–55Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1965. The types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the British Museum (Natural History) and in the Hope Department of Entomology, Oxford. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Entomology Supplement 1Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1991. Revision of Spilomicrus Westwood in America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea, Diapriidae). The Canadian Entomologist 123: 107–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masner, L. 1993. Chapter 13. Superfamily Proctotrupoidea. pp 537–57 in Goulet, H., Huber, J.T. (Eds), Hymenoptera of the world: an identification guide to families. Agriculture Canada Publication 1894Google Scholar
Masner, L. 1995. Chapter 9. The proctotrupoid families. pp 209–46 in EH, Hanson, ID, Gauld (Eds), The Hymenoptera of Costa Rica. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Masner, L., García, J.L. 2002. The genera of Diapriinae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) in the new world. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2682.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masner, L., Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1968. The types of Proctotrupoidea (Hymenoptera) in the United States National Museum. US National Museum Bulletin 270Google Scholar
Mason, W.R.M. 1986. Standard drawing conventions and definitions for veinational and other features of wings of Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 88: 1–7Google Scholar
Morley, C. 1929. Catalogus Oxyurarum Britannicorum. Transactions Suffok Naturalists' Society 1: 39–60Google Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W. 1979. Superfamily Proctotrupoidea. pp 1121–86 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Smith, D.R., Burks, B.D. (Eds), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. Washington, District of Columbia: Smithsonian Institution PressGoogle Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W., Masner, L. 1967. Superfamily Procotrupoidea. pp 285–305in Krombein, K.V., Burks, B.D. (Eds), Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico. Synoptic catalog (Agriculture monograph 2). Second supplement. Washington, District of Columbia: United States Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
Muesebeck, C.F.W., Walkely, LM. 1951. Superfamily Proctotupoidea. pp 655–718 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V., Townes, H.K. (Eds), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico — Synoptic Catalog. Monograph 2. Washington, District of Columbia: US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Naumann, I.D. 1982. Systematics of the Australian Ambositrinae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), with a synopsis of the non-Australian genera of the subfamily. Australian Journal of Zoology Supplementary Series 85Google Scholar
Nichols, S.W. (Compiler). 1989. The Torre-Bueno glossary of entomology. New York: New York Entomological Society and the American Museum of Natural HistoryGoogle Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1957. Hymenoptera, Proctotrupoidea, Diapriidae, subfamily Belytinae. Handbooks for the identification of British insects 8(3dii). London, United Kingdom: Royal Entomological Society of LondonGoogle Scholar
Nixon, G.E.J. 1980. Diapriidae (Diapriinae). Hymenoptera, Proctotrupoidea. Handbooks for the identification of British insects 8(3di). London, United Kingdom: Royal Entomological Society of LondonGoogle Scholar
Notton, D.G. 1994. A description of the male of Entomacis penelope Nixon (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea, Diapriidae). Entomologist's Gazette 45: 57–8Google Scholar
Remm, H. 1988. Family Ceratopogonidae. pp 11–110in Soós, Á, Papp, L. (Eds), Catalog of Palearctic Diptera. Volume 3. New York: Elsevier Science Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
Romani, R., Isidoro, N., Bin, F., Vinson, S.B. 2002. Host recognition in the pupal parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae: a morpho-functional approach. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 105: 119–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronquist, F., Nordlander, G. 1989. Skeletal morphology of an archaic cynipoid, Ibalia rufipes (Hymenoptera: Ibaliidae). Entomologica Scandinavica 33: 1–60Google Scholar
Sacchetti, P., Belcar, A., Romani, R., Isidoro, N., Bin, F. 1999. External morphology and ultrastructure of male antennal glands in two diapriids (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae). Entomological Problems 30: 63–71Google Scholar
Sarazin, M.J. 1986. Primary types of Ceraphronoidea, Evanoidea, Proctotrupoidea, and Trigonaloidea (Hymenoptera) in the Canadian National Collection. The Canadian Entomologist 118: 957–89Google Scholar
Saunders, L.G. 1956. Revision of the genus Forcipomyia based on characters of all stages (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 34: 657–705Google Scholar
Sinclair, B.J. 2000. Immature stages of Australian Austrothaumalea Tonnoir and Niphta Theischinger (Diptera: Thaumaleidae). Australian Journal of Entomology 39: 171–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundholm, A. 1970. Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea. South African Animal Life 14: 305–401Google Scholar
Teodorescu, I. 1986. Contributions to the knowledge of genitalia in males of Ceraphronoidea and Proctotrupoidea. Analele Universitatii Bucuresti Biologie 35: 3–15Google Scholar
Teskey, H.J. 1976. Diptera larvae associated with trees in North America. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 100Google Scholar
Thomsen, L.C. 1937. Aquatic Diptera. Part V: Ceratopogonidae. Memoirs of the Cornell University Agriculture Experimental Station 210Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1858. Sverges Proctotruper. IV. Tribus Diapriini. Tribus V. Ismarini. Tribus VI. Helorini. Oefversigt af. Kongl. Ventenskaps-akadamiens Foerhandlingar. 15: 359–380Google Scholar
Wing, M.F. 1951. A new genus and species of myrmecophilous Diapriidae with taxonomic and biological notes on related forms. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 102: 195–210Google Scholar