Eupelmus (Eupelmus) Dalman

Gibson, Gary A. P., 2011, 2951, Zootaxa 2951, pp. 1-97 : 17-19

Eupelmus (Eupelmus) Dalman

Eupelmus Dalman, 1820 .

Holceupelmus Cameron, 1905 .

Bruchocida Crawford, 1913 .

Lindesonius Brèthes, 1916 .

Rafa Brèthes, 1916 .

Lepideupelmus Timberlake, 1926 .

Neosolindenia Gourlay, 1928 .

Propelma Trjapitzin, 1963 .

Cocceupelmus Kalina, 1984 .

Eupelmus (Eupelmus) ; Gibson, 1995.

Remarks. When Kalina (1988) keyed the females of Palaearctic Eupelmus he incompletely differentiated five names as part of the last two couplets, including the classical names E. annulatus Nees , E. nubilipennis Förster , and E. urozonus Dalman. Bouček (1988: 563) recorded E. urozonus from Australia and stated that it “belongs to a very difficult species group ( urozonus -group) and without its revision it is not possible to decide with certainty whether some Australian specimens really belong to urozonus ”. Askew and Nieves-Aldrey (2000: 57) also referred to the urozonus -group as “an aggregate of forms which are poorly-differentiated morphologically but distinct biologically”. Noyes (2010) recorded E. urozonus from more than 60 countries in the Old World, including Europe, northern Africa, Asia and Australia, and from over 100 host species in Coleoptera , Diptera , Hemiptera , Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera . Lotfalizadeh et al. (2007: 78) also stated that in Iran they were “able to recognize from fine but distinct morphological characters at least six different forms” that “segregated according to different hosts” but which keyed to E. urozonus using available keys. Askew and Blasco-Zumeta’s (1997) differentiation of Eupelmus sp. from E. urozonus is a good example of the subtle features that likely differentiate both sexes of sibling species in the urozonus -group, but which equally likely may be affected by specimen size, preservation, and possibly are host-induced.

Although the urozonus -group is often alluded to, its morphological limits and membership are not well delimited. Bouček (1988: 559) and Gibson (1995: 204) characterized the urozonus group somewhat differently, but both only in the context of females. For the purpose of this work the urozonus -group is differentiated primarily by features of the males. The urozonus -group is defined as comprising those species of E. ( Eupelmus ) with males having a line of distally curved setae along the pedicel ventrally (Fig. 56), a differentiated long seta below the malar sulcus (Figs 67, 69), and an extensively dark body, including the scape, maxillary and labial palpi, the tegulae, and the legs entirely or largely except often the pro- and mesotibiae being more extensively light-colored and usually the basal 1−4 tarsomeres being white (Figs 58−61). Within this definition the urozonus -group in North America consists of at least the following eight species — E. annulatus , E. conigerae Ashmead , E. curticinctus n. sp., E. cushmani (Crawford) , E. cyaniceps Ashmead , E. cynipidis Ashmead , E. pervius n. sp. and E. utahensis Girault. Females belonging to the urozonus -group are macropterous, have a linea calva and the postmarginal vein at most only about 1.5× as long as the stigmal vein (Figs 8, 49b), the prepectus has at least a couple of longitudinal rows of setae (Figs 42–44), the mesotibia has black pegs apically, and the mesotarsus has black pegs arranged partly into two rows along either side of the basitarsus distally ( Fig. 32). Except for E. conigerae ( Fig. 22) and E. cynipidis ( Fig. 21), females are also characterized by having hyaline or only slightly tinted (Fig. 49b) forewings and the posteromedian concave portion of the mesoscutal median lobe similarly sculptured (not distinctly smooth and shinier) than the convex anterior portion.

Length of the ovipositor sheaths relative to the metatibia has long been considered important for differentiating some species of the urozonus -group in Europe, e.g. couplet 38 in Kalina (1988) and couplet 7 in Askew and Nieves-Aldrey (2000). Based on my observations, European species of the urozonus -group having females with either comparatively short or long ovipositor sheaths can have the scrobal depression either largely smooth and shiny or reticulate-rugulose. Eupelmus urozonus (female lectotype and one paralectotype, designated by Graham, 1969: 92, NHRS, examined) is partly characterized by relatively short ovipositor sheaths (0.7× length of metatibia and 0.77× length of marginal vein for lectotype) and a smooth and shiny scrobal depression. The valid name for the E. urozonus -like species with females having comparatively short ovipositor sheaths and a reticulate scrobal depression is uncertain, but possibly is E. afer Silvestri (1919) or E. martellii Masi (1941) . Eupelmus martellii was described originally from North Africa ( Libya) as a parasitoid of the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae (Rossi) ( Diptera : Tephritidae ) and was reported subsequently from France by Arambourg and Pralavorio (1975). I examined one female and two male syntypes (MNHN) of E. martellii and they are very similar to what I interpret as the urozonus - like species with a reticulate scrobal depression except that the female is unusually small. I did not examine type material of E. afer . This species was also described based on females and males reared from Dacus oleae in Eritrea, and subsequently was recorded from Italy by Viggiani (1975). Although the sculpture of the scrobal depression in females is unknown, the dorsal habitus illustration given by Silvestri (1919, fig. VI) and the same host relationship as E. martellii suggest the names may be synonymous. Revision of Palaearctic Eupelmus is required to verify this and whether specimens with a reticulate scrobal depression reared from Dacus oleae are conspecific with those reared from other hosts.

There has also been some confusion as to the application of the names E. annulatus , E. nubilipennis and E. spongipartus Förster in Europe, all of which are differentiated from E. urozonus and E. martellii by comparatively long ovipositor sheaths. Graham (1988) selected the female lectotype of E. annulatus Nees (1834) and considered it to be the senior synonym of E. nubilipennis Förster (1860) , whereas Bouček (1970) considered that E. annulatus was the senior synonym of E. spongipartus Förster (1860) . I examined one female syntype each of E. nubilipennis and E. spongipartus (NHMV) . The E. spongipartus syntype has long ovipositor sheaths (1.03× length of metatibia and 1.25× length of marginal vein), a smooth and shiny scrobal depression, and a mesofemur that is dark brown except apically, which is similar to that of the pro- and metafemora but much darker than its respective, yellowish, mesotibia. The examined syntype of E. nubilipennis lacks both ovipositor sheaths, but the ovipositor remains and this is about as long as the metatibia and slightly longer than the marginal vein. It also has a reticulate scrobal depression and a yellowish mesofemur similar to the mesotibia, but much lighter than the pro- and metafemora. Graham (1988: 24) stated that the head of the lectotype of E. annulatus is missing. I did not examine the remaining lectotype, but according to James Hogan, curator of the Hope Entomological Museum, the “mesofemur is a uniform pale brown/yellow color with no trace of darkening” and the “ratio ovipositor/marginal = 1.24” (personal communication). These observations support the nomenclatural conclusions of Graham (1988), and that E. annulatus is the available name for the urozonus -group species having long ovipositor sheaths and a reticulate scrobal depression, whereas E. spongipartus is the available name for the species having long ovipositor sheaths and a smooth and shiny scrobal depression.

My concepts of nomenclature for North American urozonus -group species are based on the above observations. However, application of correct nomenclature will ultimately require a comprehensive revision of Eupelmus in the Palaearctic region, particularly because Ratzeburg (1844, 1848, 1852) described several species from Germany that are assignable to the urozonus -group, some of which were based only on males. Ratzeburg’s types apparently were lost during the Second World War, but some of the names, currently considered as nomina dubia, may ultimately be discovered to be senior synonyms of names currently considered as valid. Interestingly, neither E. urozonus nor E. spongipartus , the two European urozonus -group species with a smooth scrobal depression and, respectively, short or long ovipositor sheaths, are present in North America . However, both short and long ovipositor sheath forms with a reticulate scrobal depression are present in North America . This suggests that a reticulate scrobal depression is plesiomorphic within the urozonus -group and a smooth and shiny scrobal depression evolved independently in E. urozonus and in E. spongipartus in the Old World. Also, based on personal observations, it is possible to recognize the different urozonus -group species in Europe based on males as well as females, whereas except for E. annulatus , a possibly introduced species for North America , it is not or at least much more difficult to differentiate North American species of the urozonus -group based on males. Furthermore, even the morphological limits of females of some North American urozonus -group species are uncertain and the confident identification of all females tenuous. Although no formal phylogenetic analysis was attempted for this study, I suspect that most urozonus -group species in North America , including E. conigerae and E. cynipidis , evolved from a E. cyaniceps / E. martellii -like ancestor comparatively recently, with less time for morphological divergence than in the Palaearctic region.

One Old World species that has been recorded from North America , but which is not present, is E. (Eupelmus) atropurpureus Dalman. Ferrière (1954: 4) initially incorrectly recorded this species from the USA and this has been repeated in such catalogs by Peck (1963) and Noyes (2010), but I have not seen any specimens from North America .