Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-15T13:44:58.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Genera and Species of the Nearctic Dolerini (Symphyta: Tenthredinidae: Selandriinae): Classification and Phylogeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Henri Goulet
Henri Goulet*
Affiliation:
Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0C6
Get access

Abstract

The Dolerini consist of two genera (Dolerus Panzer and Prionourgus Goulet). Prionourgus consists of one species. Dolerus is subdivided into one species group and seven subgenera (nitens group, Neodolerus Goulet, Achaetoprion Goulet, Oncodolerus Goulet, Loderus Konow, Dicrodolerus Goulet, Dolerus s. str. Panzer, and Dosytheus Leach), and consists of 72 Nearctic species.Described as new are one genus [Prionourgus (type species: Dolerus salmani Ross)], four subgenera [Neodolerus (type species: Dolerus sericeus Say), Achaetoprion (type species: Dosytheus maculicollis Norton), Dicrodolerus (type species: Dosytheus apricus Norton), and Oncodolerus (type species: Loderus acidus MacGillivray)], 23 species [Dolerus abstrusus (type locality: Moose Factory, Ontario), Dolerus acer (type locality: Merritt Creek, Klamath County, Oregon), Dolerus aeneiceps (type locality: Robson, British Columbia), Dolerus alutaceus (type locality: Seymour, Illinois), Dolerus californicus (type locality: 1 mi. E Emigrant Gap, Placer County, California), Dolerus columbianus (type locality: Robson, British Columbia), Dolerus comatus (type locality: Pullman, Washington), Dolerus crinitus (type locality: Forestville, California), Dolerus decussatus (type locality: Chaffeys Locks, Ontario), Dolerusfaber (type locality, 25.5 mi. W Lakeview, Oregon), Dolerusfalcatus (type locality: Cheltenham, Pennsylvania), Dolerus fulgens (type locality: Huntingdon, Pennsylvania), Dolerus hebes (type locality: Marmora, Ontario), Dolerus incisus (type locality: Reindeer Depot, Northwest Territories), Dolerus inermis (type locality: Moscow, Idaho), Dolerus interior (type locality: Pullman, Washington), Dolerus laevis (type locality: Glacier Point, Yosemite National Park, California), Dolerus maritimus (type locality: Chase Lake, Snohomish County, Washington), Dolerus mimus (type locality: Gatineau Park, Quebec), Dolerus recurvans (type locality: Strawberry, California), Dolerus rossi (type locality: Fredericton, New Brunswick), Dolerus tacoma (type locality: Mount Rainier, Washington), and Dolerus urustus (type locality: Tuscarora, Nevada)], and two subspecies [Dolerus elderi pacificus (type locality: Sumas Prairie, British Columbia) and Dolerus konowi glacialis (type locality: Yakutat, Alaska)]. A new name, Dolerus sayi, is proposed for D. collaris Say, a junior secondary homonym.Treatment of each taxon includes synonymic list, diagnostic combination, descriptions, taxonomic notes, origin of new epithet, host and/or habitat, geographic distribution, and notes on affinities. In addition, under each species there is a discussion of geographical variation. Important character states are illustrated and geographical distribution is mapped for all species. Relationships between species of Dolerini are reconstructed from the analysis of structural characters using principles of cladistic systematics. Finally a classification is proposed for higher taxa of the Dolerini based on the reconstructed phylogeny.

Résumé

Nous reconnaissons deux genres (Dolerus Panzer et Prionourgus Goulet) dans la tribu des Dolerini. Prionourgus n'a qu'une seule espèce. Dolerus se divise en un groupe d'espèces et sept sous-genres (le groupe nitens, Neodolerus Goulet, Achaetoprion Goulet, Oncodolerus Goulet, Loderus Konow, Dicrodolerus Goulet, Dolerus s. str. Panzer et Dosytheus Leach), et consiste en 72 espèces.

Nous décrivons les nouveaux taxa suivants : le genre Prionourgus (espèce-type : Dolerus salmani Ross), quatre sous-genres [Neodolerus (espèce-type : Dolerus sericeus Say), Achaetoprion (espèce-type : Dosytheus maculicollis Norton), Dicrodolerus (espèce-type : Dosytheus apricus Norton) et Oncodolerus (espèce-type : Loderus acidus MacGillivray), 23 espèces [Dolerus abstrusus (localité-type : Moose Factory, Ontario), Dolerus acer (localité-type : Merritt Creek, Klamath County, Orégon), Dolerus aeneiceps (localité-type : Robson, Colombie-Britannique), Dolerus alutaceus (localité-type : Seymour, Illinois), Dolerus californicus (localité-type : 1 mi. est Emigrant Gap, Placer County, Californie), Dolerus columbianus (localité-type : Robson, Colombie-Britannique), Dolerus comatus (localité-type : Pullman, Washington), Dolerus crinitus (localité-type : Forestville, Californie), Dolerus decussatus (localité-type : Chaffeys Locks, Ontario), Dolerus faber (localité-type : 25.5 mi. ouest Lakeview, Orégon), Dolerus falcatus (localité-type : Cheltenham, Pennsylvanie), Dolerus fulgens (localité-type : Huntingdon, Pennsylvanie), Dolerus hebes (localité-type : Marmora, Ontario), Dolerus incisus (localité-type : Reindeer Depot, Territoires du Nord-Ouest), Dolerus inermis (localité-type : Moscow, Idaho), Dolerus interior (localité-type : Pullman, Washington), Dolerus laevis (localité-type : Glacier Point, Parc national de Yosemite, Californie), Dolerus maritimus (localité-type : Chase Lake, Snohomish County, Washington), Dolerus mimus (localité-type : Parc de la Gatineau, Québec), Dolerus recurvans (localité-type : Strawberry, Californie), Dolerus rossi (localité-type : Frédéricton, Nouveau-Brunswick), Dolerus tacoma (localité-type : Mont Rainier, Washington) et Dolerus urustus (localité-type : Tuscarora, Névada)], et deux sous-espèces [Dolerus elderipacificus (localité-type : Sumas Prairie, Colombie-Britannique) et Dolerus konowi glacialis (localité-type : Yakutat, Alaska)]. Nous proposons un nouveau nom, Dolerus sayi, comme remplacement pour D. collaris un homonyme secondaire plus récent.

Pour chaque taxon traité dans ce travail, les informations suivantes sont incluses : liste des synonymes, diagnose, descriptions, notes taxonomiques, notes sur l'hôte et/ou l'habitat, l'origine des noms nouveaux proposés, répartition géographique, et notes des relations d'affinité. En plus pour chaque espèce, nous incluons des notes sur la variation géographique. Les caractères morphologiques importants de même que la répartition géographique de toutes les espèces sont illustrés. Nous reconstruisons les lignées phylogénétiques entre les espèces à partir de l'analyse des données structurales à l'aide des principes de la cladistique. Finalement, nous proposons une classification pour les taxa supérieurs à partir de la phylogénie reconstruite.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada , Volume 118 , Supplement S135 , 1986 , pp. 5 - 208
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

REFERENCES

Allen, R.T., and Ball, G.E.. 1980. Synopsis of Mexican taxa of the Loxandrus series (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichini). Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 105: 481–576.Google Scholar
André, E. 1880. Spécies des hyménoptères d'Europe et d'Algérie. Vol. 1. André, Beaune. 196 + 643 pp.Google Scholar
Ashmead, W.H. 1898. A classification of the horntails and sawflies, or the sub-order Phytophaga, paper 7. Can. Ent. 30(12): 305–316.Google Scholar
Beauvois, P. de. 1805–1821. Insectes recueillis en Afrique et en Amérique. Levrault, Paris. 16 + 276 pp.Google Scholar
Benson, R.B. 1938. On the classification of sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Trans. R. ent. Soc. London 87(15): 353–384.Google Scholar
Benson, R.B. 1952. Hymenoptera. 2. Symphyta. Section (b). Handbook for the Identification of British Insects 6(26): 51–137.Google Scholar
Benson, R.B. 1956. Studies in Dolerini (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). I. The Dolerus of Abisko in Swedish Lapland. II. A new species of Dolerus from Italy. III. Holarctic species of Loderus. Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) 25(3–4): 55–63.Google Scholar
Benson, R.B. 1962. Holarctic sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) (b) 12: 381–409.Google Scholar
Berland, L. 1947. Hyménoptères Tenthrédinoïdes. Faune de France. 47. P. Lechevalier, Paris. 496 pp.Google Scholar
Brullé, A. 1846. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hyménoptères. (Suites à Buffon). Roret, Paris. 689 pp.Google Scholar
Cameron, P. 1881. Description of a new species of Dolerus from Scotland. Ent. Mon. Mag. 17: 206.Google Scholar
Cameron, P. 1882. A monograph of the British phytophagous hymenoptera. Vol. I. Ray Society, London. 340 pp.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1861–1863. Catalogue of the described species of Tenthredinidae and Uroceridae, inhabiting North America. Proc. ent. Soc. Phil. 1: 33–39.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1865. Catalogue of hymenoptera in the collection of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, from Colorado Territory. Proc. Ent. Soc. Phil. 4: 242–313.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1880 a. Description of new North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the American Entomological Society. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 8: 1–52.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1880 b. Catalogue of the Tenthredinidae and Uroceridae of North America. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 8: 53–68.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1887. Synopsis of the families and genera of Hymenoptera of America, north of Mexico, together with catalogue of the described species and bibliography. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. Supplementary Volume. 350 pp.Google Scholar
Cresson, E.T. 1928. The types of Hymenoptera in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia other than those of Ezra T. Cresson. Mem. Am. ent. Soc. 5: 1–90.Google Scholar
Dalla Torre, C.G. de. 1894. Catalogus hymenopterorum, Vol. I: Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae. Engelmann, Leipzig. 459 pp.Google Scholar
Donovan, E. 1808. The natural history of British insects. Vol. XIII. F.C. and J. Rivington, London. 78 pp.Google Scholar
Enslin, E. 1913. Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleuropas. Dtsch. Ent. Zeits. II: 100–200.Google Scholar
Gillette, C.P. 1890. Dolerus arvensis Say and Dolerus unicolor Beauv. Ent. News 1: 94.Google Scholar
Harris, T.W. 1835. Catalogues of the animals and plants of Massachusetts. pp. 521–660in Hitchcock, (Ed.), Rep. Geol. Mineral Bot. Zool. Mass.Google Scholar
Hartig, T. 1837. Die Familien der Blattwespen und Holzwespen, nebst einer allgemeinen Einleitung zur Naturgeschitchte der Hymenopteren. Haude and Spencer, Berlin. 14 + 416 pp.Google Scholar
Hecht, M.K., and Edwards, J.L.. 1977. The methodology of phylogenetic inference above the species level. pp. 3–51in Hecht, M.K., Goody, P.C., and Hecht, B.M. (Eds.), Major patterns in invertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced Study Institute. Series A. Vol. 14.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 263 pp.Google Scholar
International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature. Op. 135. 1939.Google Scholar
Jakovlev, . 1891. Diagnoses Tenthredinidarum novarum ex Rossia europaea, Sibiria, Asia media et confinum. Hor. Soc. ent. ross. 26: 1–62.Google Scholar
Jurine, L. 1801. Nouvelle méthode de classer les hyménoptères et les diptères. Tome premier. J.J. Paschould, Genève. 324 pp.Google Scholar
Kavanaugh, D.H. 1978. Hennig's principles and methods of phylogenetic systematics. The Biologist 54(3): 115–127.Google Scholar
Kiaer, H. 1898. Uebersicht der Phytophagen Hymenopteren der erktischen Norwegens. Tromsoe Mus. Aarsh. 19: 13–111.Google Scholar
Kincaid, T. 1900. Papers from Harriman Alaska Expedition. VII. Entomological results (1): the Tenthredinoidea. Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci. 2: 341–365.Google Scholar
Kirby, W.F. 1882. List of Hymenoptera in the British Museum, Vol. I. London. 18 + 450 pp.Google Scholar
Klug, F. 1814. Die Blattwespen nachihren Gattungen und Arten zusammengestellt. Mag. Gesell. Naturf. Freunde Berlin 8: 273–307.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1884. Bemerkungen uber Blattwespen. Dtsch. ent. Ztschr. 28: 305–354.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1890 a. Neue Palaarctische Blattwespen. Wien ent. Ztg. 9: 8–13.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1890 b. Tenthredinidae europae. Systematisch zusammengestellt. Dtsch. ent. Ztschr. 34: 225–240.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1890 c. Catalogus Tenthredinidarum Europae. (Hymenopterorum XVI Familiae). Dtsch. ent. Ztschr. 34: 241–255.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1895. Neue palaarctische Blattwespen. Wien ent. Ztg. 14: 71–78.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1897. Neue palaearctische Tenthrediniden. Wien ent. Ztg. 16: 173–187.Google Scholar
Konow, F.W. 1905. Genera insectorum. Hymenoptera, Fam. Tenthredinidae. 5(29): 1–176.Google Scholar
Lorenz, H., and Kraus, M.. 1957. Die Larvalsystematik der Blattwespen (Tenthredinoidea und Megalodontoidea). Akademie-verlag, Berlin. 6 + 339 pp.Google Scholar
Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l'ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes, avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en families. Schoell, Paris. 444 pp.Google Scholar
Leach, W.E. 1817. The zoological miscellany. Vol. III. R. and A. Taylor. London. 151 pp.Google Scholar
LeConte, J.L. 1859. The complete writing of Thomas Say on the entomology of North America. Vol 1. S.E. Cassino Co., Boston. 412 pp.Google Scholar
Lepeletier, F. de. 1823. Monographia Tenthredinetarum. Levrault, Paris. 17 + 176 pp.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1893. Washington Tenthredinidae and Uroceridae. Can. Ent. 25(10): 237–244.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1906. A study of the wings of the Tenthredinoidea, a super-family of Hymenoptera. Proc. U. S. nat. Mus. 29: 569–654.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1908. New species of Dolerinae. Can. Ent. 40(4): 125–130.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1914. New genera and species of Tenthredinidae. Can. Ent. 46(3): 103–108.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1916. Tenthredinoidea. Guide to the insects of Connecticut. Bull. State Geol. Natural Hist. Surv. Connecticut 22: 25–175.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 a(Feb. 12). Species of Dolerus from Oregon. Insect. Inscit. Menst. 11(1–3): 31–35.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 b(March). New western species of Dolerus. Can. Ent. 55(3): 65–68.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 e(April). New species of Tenthredinidae from East and Middle West. Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 18: 53–58.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 d(July). Sawflies from Alberta. Can. Ent. 55(7): 158–162.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 e(August 13). A century of Tenthredinoidea. Univ. Ill. Bull. 20(50): 1–38.Google Scholar
MacGillivray, A.D. 1923 f(Oct. 22). Saw-flies of the Katmai expedition to Alaska. J. N. Y. ent. Soc. 31(4): 163–171.Google Scholar
Malaise, R. 1931. Entomologische Ergebnisse der Swedischen Kamtchatka-Expedition 1920–1922. 35. Tenthredinidae. Ark. Zool. 23A: 1–68.Google Scholar
Masner, L., and Goulet, H.. 1981. A new model of flight-intercept trap for some hymenopterous insects. Ent. News 92(5): 199–202.Google Scholar
Matthews, J.V. Jr. 1979. Tertiary and quaternary environments: historical background for an analysis of the Canadian insect fauna, pp. 31–86 in Danks, H.V. (Ed.), Canada and its Insect Fauna. Mem. ent. Soc. Can. 108.Google Scholar
Maxwell, D.E. 1955. The comparative internal larval anatomy of sawfiies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Can. Ent. 87 (Suppl. 1). 132 pp.Google Scholar
Norton, E. 1861. Catalogue of several genera of Tenthredinidae in the United States. Proc. Boston Soc. nat. Hist. 8: 150–161.Google Scholar
Norton, E. 1867. Catalogue of the described Tenthredinidae and Uroceridae of North America. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 1: 193–280.Google Scholar
Norton, E. 1872. Notes on North America Tenthredinidae with description of new species. Trans. Am. ent. Soc. 4: 77–86.Google Scholar
Panzer, G.W. 1801 a. Nachricht von einem neuen entomologischen Werke, des Hrn. Prof. Jurine in Geneve (Beschluss). Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung. Erlangen. pp. 161–165.Google Scholar
Panzer, G.W. 1801 b. Faunae insectorum Germaniae initia. Part 82. pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Panzer, G.W. 1806. Kritische Revision der Insekten-faune Deutschland nach dem System bearbeitet. Vol. II. Felssercker, Nurnberg. 12 + 271 pp.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1878. Faune canadienne. Les insectes.- Hyménoptères. Nat. Can. 10(3): 65–73.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1883. Petite faune entomologique du Canada. Vol. II, Hymenoptera. C. Darveau, Québec, pp. 153–813.Google Scholar
Provancher, L. 1889. Additions et corrections au volume II de la faune entomologique du Canada. C. Darveau, Québec. 475 pp.Google Scholar
Riley, C.V. 1881. General notes, entomology. Am. Nat. 25: 574.Google Scholar
Riley, C.V., and Marlatt, C.L.. 1891. Wheat and grass sawflies. Insect Life 4: 168–179.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S.A. 1909. Notes on Tenthredinoidea, with descriptions of new species. Paper II. Can. Ent. 41(1): 9–21.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S.A. 1910. Notes on Tenthredinoidea. with descriptions of new species. Paper VIII. Can. Ent. 42(2): 49–52.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S.A. 1911 a. The genotype of the sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. U.S.D.A., Bur. Ent., Tech. Ser. 20(2): 69–109.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S.A. 1911 b. A classification of the suborder Chalastogastra of Hymenoptera. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 13(4): 215–226.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1931. Sawfiies of the subfamily Dolerinae of America north of Mexico. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 12(3): 1–116.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1935. Four new species of Dolerus (Hymen.: Tenthredinidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 37(4): 88–93.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1937. A generic classification of the Nearctic sawfiies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Illinois Biol. Monogr. 15(2): 1–173.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1945. Sawfly genitalia. Terminology and study techniques. Ent. News 56: 261–268.Google Scholar
Ross, H.H. 1951. Suborder Symphyta ( = Chalastogastra). pp. 4–89 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V., and Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog. Washington, United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Monograph 2. 1420 pp.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1823. A description of some new species of hymenopterous insects. West. Quart. Rep., Cincinnati 2(1): 71–82.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1824. See LeConte 1859.Google Scholar
Say, T. 1825. Appendix to Keating's narrative of an expedition to the source of the St. Peter's River, etc., under the command of Stephen Long, U.S.T.E., Vol. 2. London, pp. 268–378.Google Scholar
Smith, D.R. 1969. Nearctic sawflies. II. Selandriinae: Adults (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1398. 10 + 48 pp.Google Scholar
Smith, D.R. 1979. Suborder Symphyta. pp. 3–137in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D. Jr., Smith, D.R., and Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America north of Mexico. Vol. I. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 16 + 1198.Google Scholar
Smith, D.R. 1980. Notes on sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) with two new species and a key to North American Loderus. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 82(3): 482–487.Google Scholar
Smith, E.L. 1970. Evolutionary morphology of the external insect genitalia. 2. Hymenoptera. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 63(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1874. XVI. Descriptions of anew species of Tenthredinidae, Icheumonidae, Chrysididae, Formicidae etc. of Japan. Trans, r. ent. Soc. Lond. 16: 373–410.Google Scholar
Stephens, J.F. 1835. Illustrations of British Entomology… Mandibulata. Vol. VII. Baldwin and Cradock, London. 312 pp.Google Scholar
Thomson, C.G. 1871. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae. Tom. I. H. Ohlsson, Lundae. 342 pp.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E., and Wheeler, Q.D.. 1981. The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Syst. Zool. 30(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Weldon, G.P. 1907. Tenthredinidae of Colorado. Can. Ent. 39(9): 295–304.Google Scholar
Wong, H.R. 1963. The external morphology of the adults and ultimate larval instar of the Larch Sawfly, Pristiphora erichsonii (Htg.) (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). Can. Ent. 95: 897–921.Google Scholar
Yuasa, H. 1922. A classification of the larvae of the Tenthredinoidea. Illinois Biol. Monogr. 7(4): 1–172.Google Scholar
Zaddach, , 1859. Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Blattwespen aus dem Gebiete der preussischen Fauna. Programm d. K. Friedrichs-Collegiums. Schultz, Konigsberg. 4: 1–39.Google Scholar
Zhelochovtsev, A. 1926. Uber den bau der Legerohre von Dolerini. Rev. Zoologique Russe 4(2): 1–19.Google Scholar
Zhelochovtsev, A. 1928. Ueber Palaarktische Dolerinae. Zool. Anz. 79(3–4): 105–112.Google Scholar
Zhelochovtsev, A. 1935. Notes sur les Dolerinae (Hymenoptera) paléarctiques. Arch. Mus. Zool. Univ. Moscou 2: 79–84.Google Scholar
Zombori, L. 1982. Key to the European species of Dolerus. Hymenoptera I. Symphyta II. Tenthredinidae III (in Hungarian). Fauna Hungariae. XI(153): 109–144.Google Scholar