Erythmelus (Erythmelus) gracilis ( Howard, 1881 )

Triapitsyn, Serguei V., Berezovskiy, Vladimir V., Hoddle, Mark S. & Morse, Joseph G., 2007, A review of the Nearctic species of Erythmelus (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae), with a key and new additions to the New World fauna, Zootaxa 1641 (1), pp. 1-64 : 56-59

Erythmelus (Erythmelus) gracilis ( Howard, 1881)

( Figs 81–83 )

Anaphes gracilis Howard 1881: 370 , plate XXIV (holotype female on slide [USNM], labeled: 1. “ Anaphes gracilis How. ms. Type No. 2620”; 2. [red] “ Anaphes gracilis How Type No. 2620 U.S. N.M.”, examined. There was apparently a third label (now lost, only a patch of glue remaining) on the holotype slide of Anaphes gracilis , which probably had a hand-written indication of the type locality of this species (District of Columbia). The holotype is complete and in fair condition although it is uncleared and mounted laterally. Type locality: District of Columbia, USA); Girault 1911c: 280 (in part).

Erythmelus gracilis (Howard) : Girault 1929: 8; Doutt 1949: 78–80; Peck 1963: 29–30 (catalog).

Erythmelus (Erythmelus) gracilis (Howard) : Triapitsyn 2003: 15 (mentioned as member of the flavovarius species group).

Anaphes cinctiventris Girault 1911c: 286–287 (holotype female on slide [lost from USNM], not examined. Type locality: Mountain View, Santa Clara Co., California, USA). Synonymized under E. gracilis by Doutt 1949: 78.

Erythmelus cinctiventris (Girault) : Girault 1929: 7.

Mymar cinctiventris (Girault) : Soyka 1949: 331.

Anagrus io Girault 1911c: 294–296 (holotype male on slide [lost from Illinois Natural History Survey , Champaign , Illinois, USA], not examined. Type locality: Urbana, Champaign Co., Illinois, USA). Syn. n .

Erythmelus io (Girault): Girault 1929: 8; Doutt 1949: 81; Peck 1963: 30 (catalog).

Erythmelus (Erythmelus) io (Girault): Triapitsyn 2003: 15 (mentioned as possible member of the flavovarius species group).

Anaphes gracilipes Girault 1915: 7 (holotype female on slide, under the same coverslip with the two original syntypes of Anaphes picinus Girault [USNM], labeled: 1. “No 5054 picinus Anaphes n. sp. [crossed out] picinus Gir. Koehler, N.M. gracilipes No. cages. 3.5B.H8 19187 F.H. Gates”; 2. [red] “ Anaphes picinus Gir. 2 females Anaphes gracilipes Gir. female Types Type No. 19187 19208 U.S. N.M.”, examined. Type locality: Koehler, Colfax Co., New Mexico, USA). Syn. n.

Erythmelus gracilipes (Girault) : Girault 1929: 7; Peck 1963: 29 (catalog).

Erythmelus miridiphagus Dozier : Doutt 1949: 80 (misidentification); Peck 1963: 30 (catalog, in part, record from California, USA).

Material examined. CANADA. BRITISH COLUMBIA, Cassiar Hwy, Boyar Lake , 6.viii.1988, S. & J. Peck [1 female, CNCI] . ONTARIO: 7 mi. E of Griffith, 23–27.vi.1985 [1 female, UCRC]. Guelph, University of Guelph Arboretum , 43°32’N 80°13’W, 6–12.vi.2006, L. Coote [1 female, UCRC]. Hamilton, 19.vii.1980, M. Sanborne [1 female, CNCI]. Nepean, 6–11.viii.1989, L. Masner [1 female, CNCI]. Pine Glen (Ottawa suburb), 8–12.viii.1992, L. Masner [1 female, CNCI] . NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, Horton River shore, 68.00°N 123.28°W, 18–20.vii.2000, B. Brown [1 male, UCRC] . PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, Harrington , 7–21.viii.1989, M.E.M. Smith [1 female, CNCI] . USA. CALIFORNIA: Fresno Co.: Parlier , 21.iv.1974 [1

female, EMEC]. Reedley, 9.ix.1965, J. Hall (on citrus) [1 female, EMEC]. Los Angeles Co., Monrovia, 14– 21.xii.2004, B. Brown [2 females, UCRC]. Kern Co., Jawbone Canyon (5 mi. from Hwy. 14), 16.x.1980, J.B. Woolley [1 female, EMEC]. Monterey Co., Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park, 1.vi.1985, J. T. Huber [1 female, CNCI]. Riverside Co., Riverside: 18.ii.1965, Bascom, Warner (on lemon) [1 female, UCRC]. 26.vii.1974 (on toyon) [1 female, EMEC]. 29.iv–9.v.1983, D. Yu [1 female, CNCI]. San Bernardino Co.: Angeles Oaks, Forsee Creek, 6200’, 10.vii.2003, E.F. Drake [1 female, UCRC]. Oak Glen, 4.ix.1972, H. Gulmahamad [2 females, UCRC]. Rancho Cucamonga, 26.vii–9.viii.1946, R.C. Dickson [1 female, USNM]. Summit Valley, 28.iv.1981, J. LaSalle [1 female, CNCI]. Santa Barbara Co., University of California Sedgwick Reserve, 34°44.350’N 120°03.444’W, 1700’, 24–26.v.2006, R.L. Zuparko [3 females, EMEC]. Sonoma Co.: Rio Nido, 1.v.1947, R.L. Doutt [2 females, USNM] (misidentified by A.B. Gahan as E. miridiphagus Dozier ). Russian River near Forestville, 28.v.1947, R.L. Doutt [1 female, EMEC] (misidentified by A.B. Gahan as E. miridiphagus Dozier ). Sutter Co., Nicolaus, 25.iv.1947 (by sweeping willow) [1 female, 1 male, EMEC] (misidentified by R.L. Doutt as E. miridiphagus ). COLORADO, Teller Co., 7 mi. N of Woodland Park, South Meadows Camp, 8000’, 21–28.vii.1977, S. Peck [9 females, 7 males, CNCI]. ILLINOIS, Hardin Co., Elizabethtown, 23.vi.1932, H.L. Dozier [1 male, USNM]. NEW YORK, Kern Co., Ithaca, 12.viii.1928, J.P. Kryger [1 female, 1 male, USNM]. OHIO, Franklin Co., Columbus, 4.vii.1935, B.J. Landis [1 female, USNM]. TEXAS, Brewster Co., Big Bend National Park, Rosillo Mountains, 1.5 mi. SE of Buttrill Spring, 5300’, 24.iv.1991, G. Zolnerowich [1 female, CNCI]. WYOMING, Teton Co., Grand Teton National Park, University of Wyoming – National Park Service Field Research Station, 28.vii–15.viii.2002, S. R. Shaw [1 female, 1 male, CNCI].

Redescription. FEMALE (holotype). Body mostly dark brown except base of gaster yellow to light brown (coloration of midlobe of mesoscutum not visible); antenna and hypopygium brown; dorsellum light brown; legs light brown to brown.

Antenna ( Fig. 81 ) with short setae. Scape about 6.0 x as long as wide; pedicel much longer than F1; all funicular segments longer than wide; F1–F5 subequal in length (F1 slightly narrower and F4 slightly longer) and each much shorter than F6; F1–F5 without longitudinal sensilla, F6 with 2 longitudinal sensilla; clava 3.6 x as long as wide, with 5 longitudinal sensilla.

Mesosoma. Midlobe of mesoscutum with 1 pair of strong setae. Dorsellum apparently narrowly angulate posteriorly.

Wings. Forewing ( Fig. 82 ) 4.0 x as long as wide; blade slightly infumate behind venation but otherwise hyaline, unevenly setose in distal half or so (setae mostly along margins, leaving a small bare area medially); longest marginal cilia about 1.1 x greatest width of wing. Hind wing about 14 x as long as wide, a little shorter than forewing; blade slightly infumate; longest marginal cilia about 3.5 x greatest wing width.

Metasoma. Gaster longer than mesosoma; ovipositor about 7/10 length of gaster, a little exserted beyond apical gastral tergum (by about 1/7 of ovipositor length) and barely exserted beyond apex of hypopygium, 1.2 x length of metatibia.

Measurements of holotype (in µm). Body 860; mesosoma 364; gaster 406; ovipositor 287. Antenna: scape (including radicle) 163; pedicel 58; F1 27; F2 25; F3 28; F4 32; F5 30; F6 50; clava 155. Forewing 658:167; longest marginal cilia 188. Hind wing 603:42; longest marginal cilia 145.

VARIATION (female, based on non-type specimens). Body length 900–1170 µm. Midlobe of mesoscutum usually with a lighter (yellow to light brown) transverse submedian stripe. Forewing 3.8–4.0 x as long as wide; longest marginal cilia 0.9–1.1 x greatest forewing width. Ovipositor 1.1–1.3 x length of metatibia, sometimes barely exserted beyond apical gastral tergum.

MALE (based on the specimen from Elizabethtown , Illinois, USA). Body length 980 µm. Similar to female except for the normal sexually dimorphic features such as antenna, genitalia, and the following. Flagellum 11–segmented, all flagellomeres longer than scape. Forewing ( Fig. 83 ) 4.2 x as long as wide; longest marginal cilia 1.4 x greatest forewing width; blade relatively more setose (particularly distally) than in female. Gaster shorter than mesosoma .

Diagnosis. Member of the flavovarius species group. Among the species of the nominate subgenus of Erythmelus that lack longitudinal sensilla on F4 of the female antenna, E. (E.) gracilis is characterized by the female antenna with all the funicular segments being longer than wide, and also by a relatively wide forewing (3.8–4.0 x as long as wide) with relatively short marginal cilia (longest marginal cilia 0.9–1.1 x greatest forewing width).

Distribution. Canada (new record) and USA.

Hosts. Unknown. The two armored scale ( Diaspididae ) hosts of E. (E.) gracilis , indicated by Howard (1881), Doutt (1949), and Peck (1963), are without any doubt erroneous.

Comments. We agree with the synonymy of Anaphes cinctiventris Girault (= Erythmelus cinctiventris (Girault)) under E. gracilis by Doutt (1949) even though he almost surely did not examine the holotype specimens of either species. The holotype female of the former is now lost from the USNM. However, the morphological features mentioned in the original description of E. cinctiventris by Girault (1911c) match well with those of the existing holotype female of E. gracilis . Besides, Girault (1911c) actually compared his Anaphes cinctiventris not with the holotype of E. (E.) gracilis but at least partially with the specimen of E. (E.) psallidis Gahan in the USNM (labeled: 1. “Ex eggs Codling Moth. Tallapoosa, Ga. U.S. N.M. specimen remounted from tag.”; 2. “Not gracilis but psallidis Gahan Gah. Anaphes gracilis Howard female [Girault – crossed out] gracilis ”, correctly identified later by A.B. Gahan as E. psallidis ), misidentified by him as Anaphes gracilis Howard ( Girault 1912) , hence the following confusion about their identities.

Erythmelus gracilipes (Girault) , whose holotype female specimen is in very poor condition (it is uncleared, mounted laterally under the crushed part of the coverslip, with parts of the antennae, a forewing, and a hind wing detached), is another obvious synonym of E. (E.) gracilis . Again, Girault (1915) apparently compared his Anaphes gracilipes not with the holotype of E. gracilis but at least partially with the aforementioned specimen of E. (E.) psallidis from Tallapoosa, Georgia, USA in the USNM, misidentified by him as E. gracilis .

The holotype male of E. io (Girault) is lost from the collection of the Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois, USA (C. Favret, personal communication). However, the first author is confident about the proposed synonymy of this species under E. (E.) gracilis because the detailed original description of Anagrus io by Girault (1911c) matches very well with the males identified here as E. (E.) gracilis . Particularly important is that a good quality slide-mounted male in USNM, collected by H.L. Dozier on 23.vi. 1932 in Elizabethtown, Illinois, USA, is identical to the original description of Anagrus io. The second, non-type slidemounted male from Los Angeles Co., California, USA, collected on 11.iv.1886 [USNM], and mentioned by Girault (1911c) as Anagrus io, most likely belongs to E. (E.) picinus (Girault) .

A.A. Girault as early as in 1915 recognized that his Anaphes gracilipes and A. picinus as well as Howard’s A. gracilis and its allies belong in fact in Erythmelus , but for an unknown reason still described his two new species in Anaphes Haliday ( Girault 1915) ; he transferred all of these to Erythmelus later ( Girault 1929).

Figures

FIGURES 81–83. Erythmelus (E.) gracilis. 81. Antenna (female, holotype). 82. Forewing (female, holotype). 83. Forewing (male, Elizabethtown, Illinois, USA). Scale bars = 0.1 mm.