Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914

Chen, Hsuan-Pu, Lin, Kai-Ti & Wu, Shipher, 2023, Re-evaluation of the taxonomic confusion of the metallic-blue Pimpla Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Pimplinae) species in the Oriental region, Zootaxa 5357 (2), pp. 270-284 : 272-281

Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914 [First proposed Chinese vernacular name: ḛàƍ姬¤]

( Figs 1–29 )

Pimpla cyanea Morley, 1913: 162 . Holotype: female, Sikkim (NHMUK). Preoccupied by P. cyanea Szépligeti, 1908 .

Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914: 68 . Replacement name proposed.

Coccygomimus cyanator – Townes, Townes & Gupta, 1961: 30; Lal, 1966: 124; Gupta, 1987: 82; Gupta & Saxena, 1987: 377; Jonathan, 1995: 93; Jonathan, 2003: 449; Jonathan, 2005: 195.

Coccygomimus alishanensis Kusigemati, 1984: 129 . Holotype: male, Jumeitang , Alishan, Chiai Hsien, Formosa (SEHU). syn. nov.

Diagnosis. This species can be distinguished from other congeners in having body coloration metallic blue and the inner side of fore femur and tibia with yellow marking except three Neotropical species ( P. caerulea Brullé, 1846 , P. caeruleata Cresson, 1874 , and P. viridescens Morley, 1914 ), one Afrotropical species ( P. cyanea Szepligeti, 1908 ), and one Oriental species ( P. indra Cameron, 1899 ). The diagnostic characters separating P. cyanator from other metallic-blue species is summarized in Table 1 .

Materials examined. Type materials. Holotype of Pimpla cyanea Morley, 1913 : ♀ ( NHMUK 015214901 ), “ Sikkim 4000 ft (= 1219.2 m), INDIA”, IV.1894, C.T. Bingham leg.(by photos, Figs 1–5 ) . Holotype of Coccygomimus alishanensis Kusigemati, 1984 : ♂ ( SEHU), “ Jumeitang [ďüdz], Alishan , Chiai (= Chiayi county), TAIWAN”, 14. IV. 1984, Kenji Ohara leg. ( Figs 6–11 ) . Non-type materials. 2♀ ( TFRI, SP055 – SP056 ), “ 24.361197 N, 121.163499 E, SBM11, Sian Campground of Mt. Danan [*NJƜƱỡfiṁ], 3100m, Shei-Pa National Park, Taian Township, Miaoli County, TAIWAN”, 27.VI.–25. VIII. 2021, Malaise Trap, Kuang-Yao Chen, Jung-Chang Chen, Li-Jen Chang, Ta-Hsiang Li and Hung-Yang Shen leg. ; 4 ♀ ( NTM, TMIN3891–3894 ( CHP00985 –CHP00988)), “ Syueshan giant tree [ṮƜDz†], Heping District, Taichung City, TAIWAN”, 12. XII. 2022, Shipher Wu and Tsan-Ran Tseng leg. ; 1♀ ( TFRI, 73837), “125K, Central Cross Highway , Hualien County, TAIWAN”, 4. XI. 1989, Malaise Trap, C. C. Chiou leg. ; 1♂ ( TFRI, 70981), “No. D2, Antungchunshan [AEÞDZƜ], Hualien County, TAIWAN”, 4. VIII. 1993, S. S. Lu leg. ; 1♀ ( TARI), “ Chika Cabin–Crying slope [Ɩ± Ɯfl –¾坡], Mt. Syueshan, Heping District, Taichung City, TAIWAN”, 16. XI. 2018, You-Ting Hsieh leg. ; 2♀ ( TARI), “ Meifeng [aeë] 2130m, Nantou Hsien (=Nantou County), C. Taiwan (Central TAIWAN)”, XII. 1984, Malaise Trap, K. S. Lin and K. C. Chou leg. ; 1♀ ( TARI), “ ibidem ”, 15–22. XI. 1979, Malaise Trap, Unknown collector ; 1♀ ( TARI), “ ibidem, 2150m ”, VIII. 1984, Malaise Trap, K. S. Lin and K. C. Chou leg. ; 1♀ ( TARI), “ Tsuifeng [ụë] 2300m, Nantou Hsien (=Nantou County), C. Taiwan (Central TAIWAN)”, XII. 1984, Malaise Trap, K. S. Lin and K. C. Chou leg. ; 1♂ ( TARI), “ ibidem ”, X. 1985, Malaise Trap, K. S. Lin leg. ; 1♂ ( TARI), “ Tayuling [*ĸẽ] 2560m, Hualien Hsien (=Hualien County), C. Taiwan (Central TAIWAN)”, 12–15. IX. 1980, K. S. Lin & C. H. Wang leg. ; 1♀ ( TARI, Ichn 07067001), “Shorei, TAIWAN”, 25. X. 1928, S. Issiki leg. ; 1♀ ( TARI, Ichn 07067002), “Peitungyuanshan [ẍÞOiƜ], Ren’ai Township, Nantou County, TAIWAN”, 21. XI–5. XII. 1971, Malaise Trap, Unknown collector ; 1♀ ( TARI), “ Arishan (= Alishan), Taiwan”, 18–30. IX. 1949, T. Maa leg .

Redescription. The redescription is mainly based on Taiwanese specimens (Female, n=16; male, n=3).

Female. Head ( Figs 1, 2, 4 , 12, 14, 15 ): Head in dorsal view 1.75–2.44 × as wide as deep (mean=2.15, SD=0.17); frons smooth, finely striate dorsally; flagellum with 32–38 segments; first flagellomere 6.73–9.27 × as long as wide, 1.46–1.75 × as long as second; face 1.38–1.80 × as wide as long (mean=1.58, SD=0.11), polished, evenly punctate with setae, but weakly rugose below antennal sockets; malar space densely coriaceous, 0.86–1.26 × as long as basal width of mandible (mean=1.05, SD=0.13); gena sparsely punctate; eyes bare; clypeus 1.66–2.34 × as width as long (mean=1.95, SD=0.19), punctate basally, smooth apically, concave in lateral view, truncate or slightly concave at ventral margin; mandible wide, bidentate, sparsely punctate with hair and with upper tooth slightly longer than lower tooth; temple and ocellar area evenly punctate with setae; ocelli POL/OD=0.96–1.41 (mean=1.25, SD=0.11), OOL/ OD=0.63–1.00 (mean=0.84, SD=0.10); occiput evenly punctate; occipital carina complete, meeting hypostomal carina behind mandible by 0.90–1.22 × basal width of mandible.

Mesosoma polished ( Figs 1, 4, 5 , 12, 14, 16 ). Pronotum strigose, but minutely punctate dorsally and smooth ventro-anteriorly; epomia complete; mesoscutum 0.89–1.27 × as long as wide (mean=1.15, SD=0.10), flat in lateral view, polished and evenly, minutely punctate; notuli weak, present anteriorly and not extend to 0.3 of mesoscutum; scutellum 0.77–1.31 × as long as wide (mean=1.01, SD=0.16), convex, polished and sparsely punctate but sometimes rugose posteriorly, with lateral carina absent; mesopleurum evenly punctate, smooth posteriorly and strigose in ventro-posterior area, strongly convex in dorso-anterior area; epicnemial carina complete, extending to 0.8 of height of mesopleurum; sternaulus absent; speculum, mesepimeron and metapleurum smooth; propodeal spiracle linear; propodeum transversely and strongly strigose, with area petiolaris smooth; postpectal carina, submetapleural carina and pleural carina complete; lateral longitudinal carina strong and complete; median longitudinal carina weak; juxtacoxal carina, basal transverse carina and apical transverse carina absent.

Wings ( Figs 1 , 12 , 23, 24 ): Fore wing length 8.14–13.43 mm (mean= 11.43 mm, SD=1.48); fore wing cu-a postfurcal, distad of Rs & M by 0.29–0.46 × its distance (mean=0.37, SD=0.05); areolet closed and rectangular; 3r-m 1.51–2.30 × as long as 2r-m (mean=1.87, SD=0.20), with two bullae; 2m-cu curved, with two bullae but sometimes not obvious; hind wing hamuli 9–13; nervellar index 0.18–0.31.

Legs ( Figs 4 , 12 ): Coxa evenly punctate, with dorsal surface smooth; tarsal claws simple, without basal tooth and with one short, stout, and two slender, compressed setae at base; tibial spurs 1-2-2; fore femur 4.47–6.41 × as long as wide (mean=5.40, SD=0.60); hind femur 0.80–0.95 × as long as hind tibia (mean=0.85, SD=0.04), 3.68– 4.84 as long as wide (mean=4.12, SD=0.27); hind basitarsus 1.62–1.91 × as long as second tarsomere (mean=1.77, SD=0.10), 0.44–0.53 as long as hind tibia (mean=0.48, SD=0.03).

Metasoma polished ( Figs 4 , 12, 13, 17 ). Tergite I 1.13–1.57 × as long as wide (mean=1.36, SD=0.12), dorsally convex, with petiole smooth, postpetiole weakly strigose or punctate, and alutaceous apically; glymma present; median dorsal carina absent; dorsolateral carina present basally; ventrolateral carina complete; tergite II 0.57–0.78 × as long as wide (mean=0.70, SD=0.06), weakly and densely strigose with sparse and minute punctures, alutaceous laterally and apically, sometimes smooth basally; thyridium present, distance between each other 0.7–0.8 of its width; tergites III and following weakly and densely strigose with sparse and minute puncture, alutaceous laterally and apically; lateral tergite IV 0.29–0.51 × as long as wide (mean=0.40, SD=0.06); lateral tergite V 0.35– 0.51 × as long as wide (mean=0.41, SD=0.05); ovipositor sheath 0.96–1.22 × as long as hind tibia (mean=1.06, SD=0.08), setose and transversely striate; ovipositor smooth, cylindrical and apically depressed; upper valve slightly shorter than lower valve, with dorsolateral fine teeth; lower valve with proximal teeth.

Coloration ( Figs 1, 4 , 12–17 , 23–26 ): Antenna blackish brown; face metallic dark blue, with golden green and red reflection in central area and ventro-lateral corner; setae of face dark brown; frons, clypeus and mandible black, with metallic dark green reflection; maxillary and labial palps blackish brown, with last segment tinged with reddish brown; gena, malar space, temple, ocellar area, occiput, pronotum, mesoscutum, scutellum, mesopleurum, metapleurum and propodeum metallic dark blue with golden green reflection; tegula metallic dark blue, with prespiracular area whitish yellow; wing tinged with yellow; wing vein blackish brown or yellowish brown seldomly, yellow at 0.2–0.5 of wing base; pterostigma yellowish or blackish brown, but yellow at base; all coxae metallic dark blue; fore coxa with single small to large yellow spot, but usually absent in Taiwanese population; trochanter metallic dark blue, with first segment of fore trochanter sometimes yellow apically; fore femur metallic dark blue, reddish brown basally and apically, yellow in upper inner side; mid and hind femora metallic blue, sometimes reddish brown basally; fore tibia reddish brown with metallic dark blue reflection, yellow in inner side; mid and hind tibiae metallic dark blue; tarsus blackish brown with weak metallic reflection; tergite I metallic dark blue, sometimes with golden green reflection; tergites II and after metallic dark blue; sternites metallic dark blue and reddish brown apically; ovipositor sheath black with metallic blue reflection; ovipositor reddish brown.

Coloration of head and mesosoma metallic blue with weak golden green reflection in alcohol-treated specimens ( Fig. 23 ), and black with weak or without metallic reflection in the faded Taiwanese specimens and the holotype of P. cyanator ( Figs 1, 4 , 24 ); ventral and lateral margin of clypeus, gena near the base of mandible, tegula, all coxae, apical part of second segment of hind trochanter, mid and hind femora, mid and hind tibiae, latero-apical margin of tergites II and followings, thyridium, and sternites tinged with reddish brown in faded specimens (including the holotype of P. cyanator ); body coloration black with golden green reflection in live specimens ( Figs 28, 29 ).

Male. Mostly same with the female mentioned above except the following character states:

Head ( Figs 6, 8, 10 , 18–20 ): Head in dorsal view 1.85–2.20 × as wide as deep (mean=2.05, SD=0.18); flagellum with 30–33 flagellomeres; flagellomeres 6–7 with tyloids; first flagellomere 3.81–4.80 × as long as wide, 1.17–1.25 × as long as second; face 1.36–1.56 × as wide as long (mean=1.48, SD=0.11), strongly punctate with long setae; malar space 0.87–1.15 × as long as basal width of mandible (mean=1.05, SD=0.15);clypeus 1.71–2.53 × as width as long (mean=1.99, SD=0.47); ocelli POL/OD=1.16–1.53 (mean=1.40, SD=0.21), OOL/OD=0.68–1.42 (mean=0.99, SD=0.38); occiput evenly punctate; occipital carina complete, meeting hypostomal carina behind mandible, by 0.95–1.08 × basal width of mandible.

Mesosoma ( Figs 6, 10, 11 , 18, 22 ): Mesoscutum 1.09–1.13 × as long as wide (mean=1.11, SD=0.02); scutellum 0.94–1.18 × as long as wide (mean=1.03, SD=0.13).

Wings ( Figs 10 , 18 ): Fore wing length 7.24–10.37 mm (mean= 8.61 mm, SD=1.60); fore wing cu-a distad of Rs & M by 0.55–0.64 × its distance (mean=0.58, SD=0.05); 3r-m 1.67–1.68 × as long as 2r-m (mean=1.68, SD=0.01); hamuli 8–11; hind wing nervellar index 0.18–0.26.

Legs ( Figs 9, 10 , 18 ): Fore femur 4.68–5.33 × as long as wide (mean=5.10, SD=0.37); hind femur 0.80–0.82 × as long as hind tibia (mean=0.81, SD=0.01), 4.02–4.30 as long as wide (mean=4.16, SD=0.14); hind basitarsus 1.52–1.88 × as long as second tarsomere (mean=1.68, SD=0.18), 0.35–0.40 as long as hind tibia (mean=0.37, SD=0.03).

Metasoma ( Figs 6, 10 , 18, 21, 22 ): Tergite I 1.41–1.79 × as long as wide (mean=1.55, SD=0.21), petiole smooth, postpetiole transversely strigose; tergite II 0.79–0.84 × as long as wide (mean=0.82, SD=0.02); lateral tergite IV 0.27–0.39 × as long as wide (mean=0.31, SD=0.07); lateral tergite V 0.31 × as long as wide; paramere tapered, pointed apically; hypopygium large, tapered and pointed apically; penis valve of aedeagus depressed and curved.

Coloration ( Figs 6, 8–11 , 18–22 , 27 ): Maxillary palps yellow except the apical two segments blackish brown; fore coxa always with single small to large yellow spot; fore tibia and tarsus yellow, except fifth fore tarsomere black; paramere reddish brown.

DNA barcodes. Three sequences (664 bp) were obtained from three female Taiwanese specimens (CHP00985, CHP00986, SP056). No differences were found among the obtained sequences. GenBank accession number: OR123802–OR123804.

Distribution. India, Taiwan.

Bionomics. This species can be found from middle to high elevation mountains in India (alt. 4000ft. = 1219.2m) and Taiwan (alt. 2000–3100m). Individuals found in Syueshan giant tree was observed searching their hosts on moss land ( Fig. 29 ).

Remarks. Kusigemati (1984) proposed that P. alishanensis can be separated from P. cyanator by the lateral longitudinal carina of propodeum ‘normal’, the fore coxa with a yellow spot, the face with dark brown setae, and the head, mesosoma, hind coxa and femur metallic blue. However, since the description of P. alishanensis was based on only two male specimens ( Kusigemati 1984), the proposed diagnostic characters, including the coloration, may be influenced by intraspecific sexual dimorphism rather than indicating interspecific differences. After examining the holotype photos of P. alishanensis , P. cyanator , and additional material from Taiwan, the diagnostic characters proposed by Kusigemati are discussed as follows:

1. The ‘normal’ lateral longitudinal carina of propodeum sensu Kusigemati may refer to the strong and complete lateral longitudinal carina ( Fig. 11 ). The holotype of P. cyanator ( Fig. 5 ), and the female Taiwanese specimens ( Fig. 16 ) also show strong and complete lateral longitudinal carina. This character was described as “lateral costae strongly elevated above the elongate spiracles” in the original description of P. cyanator .

2. The yellow spot on the fore coxa presents in the holotype of P. cyanator ( Fig. 4 ) and few Taiwanese female specimens (n=4) ( Fig. 26 ), but always present in the male specimens ( Figs 9 , 27 ). This character was not described in the original description of P. cyanator .

3. The brown setae of face present in the holotype of P. cyanator and both sexes of Taiwanese specimens ( Figs 2 , 8 , 15 , 20 ). This character was described as “with sparse and white pilosity” in the original description of P. cyanator .

4. In the holotype of P. cyanator , the head and mesosoma are black without metallic reflection, while the hind coxa and femur are reddish-brown color with weak metallic reflection ( Figs 1, 4 ). These characters were described as “Head immaculate black”; “Thorax black, with a slight cyaneous reflection…”; “Legs…, black, with the anterior tibiae (at least internally), the front tarsi and the inner side of their femora, testaceous” in the original description of P. cyanator . In contrast, the holotype of P. alishanensis and other Taiwanese specimens display a metallic dark blue coloration with a golden green reflection in the head, mesosoma, hind coxa, and femur ( Figs 10 , 12 , 18 ). Additionally, the living Taiwanese specimens was observed to be black with golden green reflection ( Fig. 28 ).

The diagnostic characters proposed by Kusigemati appear to be unreliable except the coloration. However, we observed that the coloration can change during specimen preparation and preservation. After alcohol treatment, the specimens turned to metallic blue color with a weak golden green reflection ( Fig. 23 ), while faded historical specimens turned to black or reddish-brown color with weak metallic reflection ( Fig. 24 ), resembling the coloration observed in the holotype of P. cyanator ( Figs 1, 4 ).

These observations indicate that the body colorations in this species are variable and may not be reliable for diagnosis. Furthermore, there are no distinguishable differences in body structure between female Taiwanese specimens and the P. cyanator holotype. The variations observed between P. alishanensis and P. cyanator are within the expected range of sexual dimorphism commonly observed in the genus Pimpla . Herein, we therefore suggest P. alishanensis and P. cyanaor are conspecific, and P. alishanensis is considered a junior synonym (syn. nov.). In addition, the holotype of P. cyanator is regarded as a possibly severely faded specimen.

Figures

FIGURES 1–5. The holotype of Pimpla cyanea Morley, 1913 (=Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914), NHMUK. 1, dorsal habitus; 2, face in anterior view; 3, labels; 4, lateral habitus; 5, propodeum in dorsal view. Photographed by Gavin Broad. © Trustees of the Natural History Museum, London (available under CC-BY 4.0). Scale bars: 4, 5 mm.

FIGURES 6–11. The holotype of Coccygomimus alishanensis Kusigemati, 1984 (=Pimpla alishanensis), SEHU. 6, dorsal habitus; 7, labels; 8, face in anterior view; 9, fore coxa; 10, lateral habitus; 11, propodeum in lateral view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 3 mm.

FIGURES 12–17. The female of the Taiwanese Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, NTM. 12, lateral habitus; 13, apex of ovipositor; 14, head in dorsal view, mesoscutum and scutellum; 15, face in anterior view; 16, propodeum in dorsal view; 17, tergites I–III in dorsal view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 12, 3 mm; 13, 0.5 mm; 14–17, 1 mm.

FIGURES 18–22. The male of the Taiwanese Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, TFRI. 18, lateral habitus; 19, tyloids on the male flagellomeres indicated by the white triangle; 20, face in anterior view; 21, male genitalia and hypopygium; 22, propodeum and tergite I in dorso-lateral view. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 18, 3 mm; 19–21, 0.5 mm; 22, 1 mm.

FIGURES 23–27. Variation in the Taiwanese specimens of Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914, TFRI (23, 27), TARI (24, 26), NTM (25). 23, alcohol-treated specimen; 24, faded historical specimen; 25, female fore coxae without yellow spot; 26, female fore coxae with yellow spot indicated by the white triangle; 27, male fore coxae. Photographed by Hsuan-Pu Chen. Scale bars: 23–24, 3 mm; 25–27, 0.5 mm.

FIGURES 28–29. The living female Pimpla cyanator Morley, 1914 found in Syueshan giant tree, Heping, Taichung City, Taiwan. 28, a living individual; 29, a living individual searching on the moss land. Photographed by Shipher Wu. Scale bars: 28, 10 mm.