Amphibolips magnigalla Nieves-Aldrey & Castillejos-Lemus, 2020

Castillejos-Lemus, Dohuglas Eliseo, Oyama, Ken & Nieves-Aldrey, Jose Luis, 2020, Description of three new species of oak gallwasps of the genus Amphibolips Reinhard from Mexico (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae), ZooKeys 987, pp. 81-114 : 81

publication ID	https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.987.51366
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CFC20F09-580A-49BE-BE3D-DA64C11F12B0
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/34858B85-8A3C-4675-9ADD-76BABA811ABA
taxon LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:act:34858B85-8A3C-4675-9ADD-76BABA811ABA
treatment provided by	ZooKeys by Pensoft
scientific name	Amphibolips magnigalla Nieves-Aldrey & Castillejos-Lemus
status	sp. nov.

Treatment

Amphibolips magnigalla Nieves-Aldrey & Castillejos-Lemus sp. nov. Figs 1 View Figure 1 , 2 View Figure 2 , 3 View Figure 3 , 4 View Figure 4 , 5 View Figure 5

Type material.

Holotype: 1♀ in the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain (MNCN), mounted (glued) on a card. Mexico, Oaxaca, Comaltepec, 17°33'50"N, 96°33'20"W, ca. 2330 m alt.; ex gall Quercus zempoaltepecana ( Quercus sect. Lobatae ), gall collected 21/04/2018, insect emerged 30/04/2018. D. Castillejos-Lemus leg. Paratypes: 5♂, same data as holotype but emerged 1-3/05/2018. Two paratype ♂ were dissected and mounted on a stub for SEM observation in the MNCN. Other materials: 4♂, same data as paratypes, preserved in ethanol (in MNCN and Castillejos-Lemus collection, Morelia, Mexico). Additional material: 3 galls, one dissected (in MNCN).

Etymology.

Named after the strikingly-large size of the galls of this species.

Diagnosis and comments.

This new species belongs to the group of Amphibolips species that have a forewing with a transversal clear band that is variable in size and extends towards medial and cubital veins to the ventral margin of the wing ( Nieves-Aldrey et al. 2012). The aforementioned group comprises Amphibolips castroviejoi from Panama, Amphibolips trizonata Ashmead, 1896 from Arizona (USA) and the Mexican Amphibolips durangensis Nieves-Aldrey & Maldonado, 2012, A. dampfi and the recently described A. cibriani Pujade-Villar, 2018 ( Pujade-Villar et al. 2018). However, the forewing pattern of the new species is different from that of all the referenced species. The transversal clear band is larger and broader and extends to two-thirds of the radial cell in both sexes and the basal third of the wing is more heavily infuscate in the male (Fig. 4A, B View Figure 4 ).

Amphibolips magnigalla shares with Amphibolips dampfi , A. castroviejoi and the other two new species described herein, a mesoscutellum emarginate posteriorly. However, the emargination is comparatively less deep in A. magnigalla (Figs 1C View Figure 1 , 2C View Figure 2 ). Besides the main character of the forewing, the four species can be readily distinguished by the characters provided in the identification key in this paper.

Regarding the gall, the new species is easily distinguished by its large spindle-shaped gall (approximately 10 cm in length × 2.5 cm in diameter), which is at least 2 × larger than any other spindle-shaped gall described from Mexico. Amphibolips fusus and A. durangensis induce galls morphologically similar to the gall of the new species. However, besides the differences in size, the inner structure of the gall induced by the referenced species is different, being filled with a dense soft tissue, while the inner structure of the gall induced by the new species is often almost empty, with visible radiating filaments from the central larval cell.

Description.

Body length: 5.8 mm (n = 1) for females; 5.2 mm (n = 3) for males.

Female (Fig. 4C View Figure 4 ). Body almost entirely black; antennae, except two basal segments, mandibles, metasoma ventrally, hypopygium and parts of tibiae and tarsi, chestnut. Forewing predominantly black infuscate, except a wide clear transversal band that starts in the distal two thirds of radial cell and extends towards discoidal and cubital cell, almost reaching ventral margin of forewing. Another non-infuscate band extended from the posterior part of the costal cell towards the Rs+M vein and reached the cubital vein (Fig. 4A View Figure 4 ).

Head, in dorsal view 2.3 × wider than long. POL:OOL:DOL as 23:44:14. Head in anterior view (Fig. 1A View Figure 1 ) 1.2 × wider than high, gena slightly broadened behind eye. Vertex, frons, lower face, gena and occiput with strong reticulate-rugose sculpture (Fig. 1B View Figure 1 ); two longitudinal carina present, extending from ventral margin of toruli to converge towards the anterior tentorial pits; irradiating carinae from clypeus absent; head moderately pubescent, except in vertex and frons. Clypeus more or less hexagonal, ventral margin strongly projecting over mandibles and slightly sinuate on anterior margin. Anterior tentorial pits well visible; epistomal sulcus and clypeo-pleurostomal lines slightly discernible. Malar space 0.7 × height of compound eye. Toruli situated mid-height of compound eye; transfacial line 1.4 × height of an eye; distance between antennal rim and compound eye slightly shorter than width of antennal socket including rim. Ocellar plate slightly raised.

Head posterior view (male) (Fig. 2B View Figure 2 ), heavily pubescent, with occiput coarsely rugose; dorsally the sculpture is transversely ribbed. Two carinae present, arising from dorsal part of the occipital foramen and ventrally continuing past posterior tentorial pits; posterior tentorial pits rounded; gular sulci united meeting at hypostoma. Posterodorsal margin of oral foramen not margined medially; hypostomal ridges well separated.

Mouthparts (male) (Fig. 2A View Figure 2 ), mandibles strong, exposed; with dense setae in base, right mandible with three teeth; left with two teeth. Cardo of maxilla not visible, maxillary stipes 4.1 × as long as wide. Maxillary palp with five segments. Labial palp with three segments; apical peg of last labial and maxillary segments present.

Antenna (Fig. 3C View Figure 3 ), of moderate length, 0.5 × as long as body length; with 13 antennomeres; flagellum not broadening towards apex; with relatively long, erect setae. Relative length/width of antennal segments as: 0.29(0.16):0.12(0.16):0.44(0.15):0.32(0.14):0.25(0.15):0.24(0.16):0.21(0.15):0.19(0.15): 0.17(0.14): 0.16(0.15):0.16(0.15):0.16(0.15):0.32(0.14). Pedicel (Fig. 3C View Figure 3 ) short, small, broader than long, 0.4 × as long as scape; F1 1.4 × as long as F2. F8-F10 as long as wide, F11 2.3 × as long as wide, 2 × as long as F10. Placodeal sensilla on F5-F11, disposed in dense rows of 6-8 sensilla, only in half dorsal area of each flagellomere.

Mesosoma in lateral view (Fig. 1E View Figure 1 ) 1.12 × as long as high. Pronotum, moderately pubescent; lateral surface of pronotum with strong irregular reticulate rugose sculpture. Pronotum medially short; ratio of length of pronotum medially/laterally = 0.2. Pronotal plate indistinct dorsally.

Mesonotum. Mesoscutum (Fig. 1C View Figure 1 ) barely pubescent and with strong reticulate-rugose sculpture, the interspaces smooth and shining. Notauli somewhat obscured by the coarse sculpture, but visible; strongly convergent posteriorly; longitudinal median impression, not discernible. Anteroadmedian signa quite visible, extended back to near one half of mesoscutum; parapsidal signa distinct. Transscutal fissure narrow, sinuate. Mesoscutellum 1.2 × as long as wide; about 0.7 × as long as mesoscutum. Scutellar foveae (Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ) rounded, elongated posteriorly, about 0.5 × as long as mesoscutellum, separated medially by a groove, the foveae are deep, mostly smooth anteriorly and crossed posteriorly by irregular transversal rugae, the intervals smooth, posterior margins indistinct. Mesoscutellum strongly coarsely rugose, with a deep and broad median longitudinal impression which makes the mesoscutellum strongly emarginate posteriorly (Fig. 1D View Figure 1 ); the emargination reaches anteriorly the scutellar foveae. In lateral view, the posterior emargination of mesoscutellum is seen as two, slightly curved upwards, horn-like projections. Mesoscutellum in lateral view with the posterodorsal extension of body of subaxillular strip short, not reaching one half of mesoscutellar height. Mesopleuron coarsely reticulate rugose, the rugae not as strong as in mesoscutum (Fig. 1E View Figure 1 ).

Metanotum. Metapectal-propodeal complex. Metapleural sulcus reaching posterior margin of mesopectus at about mid-height of metapectal-propodeal complex. Metascutellum rugose; metanotal trough smooth and pubescent. Median propodeal area (Fig. 1F View Figure 1 ) with some irregular strong longitudinal and transversal rugae; and densely pubescent; lateral propodeal carinae distinct, subparallel anteriorly and converging posteriorly.

Legs. Densely pubescent; femora and tibiae robust. Metatibia about as long as metatarsus; apical margin of metatarsomeres 1-4, with long strong erect setae. Metatarsal claws with strong triangular basal lobes or teeth.

Forewing (Fig. 4A View Figure 4 ), about as long as body, radial cell 3.2 × longer than wide; open along anterior margin; areolet obsolete, obscured by infuscation. M and Cu1 veins nearly straight, not reaching wing margin. Rs+M not reaching basalis. First abscissa of radius (2r) slightly angled, not projected. Cu1 vein not branched in two veins. Apical margin with very short or obsolete hair fringe.

Metasoma (Fig. 3A, D View Figure 3 ), in dorsal view 1.6 × as long as wide, in lateral view 1.2 × as long as high. Second metasomal tergite covering about 0.7 × length of metasoma. Anterior 2/3 smooth and shining; posterior one third with a band of micropunctures clearly visible; the punctate sculpture extended on subsequent tergites; ventral area of second metasomal tergite moderately pubescent. Projecting part of hypopygial spine moderately long (Fig. 3B View Figure 3 ); 4.6 × as long as high in lateral view; laterally with long setae, longer than spine width, but not forming an apical patch.

Male (Figs 2A-F View Figure 2 , 4B, D View Figure 4 ). Differs from the female as follows: smaller size, length 5.2 mm on average (n = 3). Body and wings almost completely black, except tarsomeres of anterior legs and apical segments of antennae. Antennae, legs and wings relatively longer. Antenna (Fig. 3E View Figure 3 ) with 14 segments. Antennal formula as: 0.24(0.15):0.13(0.15):0.6(0.11):0.39(0.13):0.35(0.14):0.35(0.14):0.32(0.12): 0.31(0.11):0.28(0.11): 0.27(0.1):0.27(0.1):0.27(0.1):0.26(0.1):0.24(0.1):0.23(0.08). F1 slightly curved and enlarged apically and flattened ventrally, 1.5 × as long as F2; placodeal sensilla present in all the flagellomeres (Fig. 3F View Figure 3 ). Head 1.3 × as wide as high; apical part of gena slightly expanded. Mesoscutellar impression not reaching the scutellar foveae (Fig. 2D View Figure 2 ). Scutellar foveae confluent, not separated by a sulcus. Forewing relatively longer 1.2 × as long as body. Almost completely black, except the distal transversal clear band (Fig. 4B View Figure 4 ).

Gall (Fig. 5A-D View Figure 5 ). A large spindle-shaped gall with an elongated and narrow tip and base. The galls measure 100 × 25 mm on average. The surface of the gall is smooth, but some superficial longitudinal ridges are visible. The gall is monothalamic; the outer shell is thin, flexible and of fleshy consistency when it is fresh and becomes soft and light when it dries. They are light green without spots when they are fresh and light brown when they are dry. Internally (Fig. 5C View Figure 5 ), there is an oval larval cell in the centre of the gall (0.35 mm thick and 7 × 5 mm; n = 1). A spongy tissue occupies the entire space between the epidermis and the larval chamber, the outer shell is weakly attached to the internal spongy tissue when fresh and when the gall dries, the spongy tissue allows us to observe the radiant filaments, which extend from the larval chamber towards the internal walls of the galls (Fig. 5D View Figure 5 ). When it is dry, the gall is very fragile and can be easily crushed. At least half of the galls no longer showed spongy tissue when they were transferred to the laboratory. This caused the galls to collapse due to the fragility of the epidermis. Some of these collapsed galls presented internal modifications in the epidermis, probably caused by inquilines.

The galls develop on twigs of Quercus zempoaltepecana Trel. The gall closely resembles that of Amphibolips durangensis Nieves-Aldrey & Maldonado, 2012. However, the gall of A. magnigalla is distinguished by its larger size, which is at least 2 × longer than that of A. durangensis and by its different internal structure, which is filled with less dense spongy tissue and radiant filaments (easily visible in the older galls).

Distribution.

A. magnigalla was found only in one site: Comaltepec (Oaxaca State, Mexico). The galls were relatively abundant on a single isolated tree, while we did not find galls on the nearby trees.

Biology.

Sexual generation. The galls were collected at the end of April and the insects emerged shortly thereafter, in early May. It seems that it is normal for many insects to feed on the tissue of this species. A detached gall was observed in a field, relatively far from the tree, probably carried by a bird.