Anastatus (Anastatus) dexingensis Sheng and Wang, 1997

Peng, Lingfei, Gibson, Gary A. P., Tang, Lu & Xiang, Jiawei, 2020, Review of the species of Anastatus (Hymenoptera: Eupelmidae) known from China, with description of two new species with brachypterous females, Zootaxa 4767 (3), pp. 351-401 : 363-366

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4767.3.1
publication LSID	urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BAF472F8-CD4E-4518-A279-CCAA12F01737
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3797169
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/EF69D43A-FFB5-FFFA-FF74-F9B2FB95FA5C
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Anastatus (Anastatus) dexingensis Sheng and Wang, 1997
status

Treatment

Anastatus (Anastatus) dexingensis Sheng and Wang, 1997 View in CoL

Figs 4 View FIGURE 4 , 5 View FIGURE 5

Anastatus dexingensis Sheng and Wang, in Sheng et al. 1997: 59 View in CoL (Chinese description), 63 (English synopsis), figs 6–9. De- scribed: female.

Anastatus kashmirensis View in CoL ; Hu et al., 2011: 483–484, fig. 1. Misidentification.

Anastatus dexingensis View in CoL ; Peng et al., 2017: 4–6 View Cited Treatment , figs 1–7.

Diagnosis. FEMALE. Macropterous ( Figs 4A, F, G View FIGURE 4 ). Fore wing with hyaline cross band behind marginal vein complete but often with at least a few dark setae medially within band ( Fig. 4H View FIGURE 4 ) and sometimes with more-or-less complete band of dark setae medially ( Fig. 4I View FIGURE 4 ); infuscate region basal of hyaline band with uniformly dark setae and variably broad relative to hyaline band depending on whether hyaline band with entirely white setae ( Fig. 4F View FIGURE 4 ) or with dark setae medially ( Figs 4H, I View FIGURE 4 ); basal region with basal cell, mediocubital fold and cubital and vanal areas uniformly setose, though basal cell with comparatively inconspicuous white setae ( Fig. 5B View FIGURE 5 ). Head ( Fig. 4C View FIGURE 4 ) with scrobal depression distinctly separated from anterior ocellus by distance at least equal to 2× longitudinal diameter of ocellus. Antenna ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 ) with fl2 longer than pedicel, but not all funiculars longer than wide, with at least apical two funiculars quadrate to slightly transverse ( Fig. 5A View FIGURE 5 , insert). Mesosoma, including procoxa ( Fig. 4A View FIGURE 4 ), entirely dark, with concave posterior part of mesoscutum bright green to bluish or partly purple in distinct contrast to rest of mesoscutum ( Fig. 4B View FIGURE 4 ); mesotibial apical spur infuscate ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ); mesotarsus with at least basal three tarsomeres pale, much lighter than mesotibial apical spur and dark mesotarsal pegs ( Fig. 5C View FIGURE 5 ). Mesoscutum ( Fig. 4B View FIGURE 4 ) with convex anterior part of medial lobe entirely punctate-reticulate, and with posterior concave part of mesoscutum broadly setose with white setae medially, but apices of setae not extending laterally to carinate margin of lateral lobe; mesoscutal lateral lobe uniformly reticulate-imbricate to reticulate-rugose and setose anterior to posteromedian carina ( Figs 4B, D View FIGURE 4 ). Profemur ventrally with distinct, acute, spine-like denticle (tooth) within about apical third (cf. Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 ).

MALE. Antenna ( Figs 5D, F View FIGURE 5 ) with scape yellow; pedicel dark dorsally but pale ventrally; flagellum with at least basal one or two flagellomeres paler relative to darker brown apical flagellomeres such that darker multiporous plate sensilla ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 : mps) contrasting in colour with surrounding cuticle, and consisting of clava and seven funiculars, with all funiculars obviously longer than wide and clava subequal in length to combined length of apical two funiculars ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 ). Head ( Fig. 5E View FIGURE 5 ) with frons mostly to entirely mesh-like coriaceous to pustulate. Mesopleurosternum uniformly dark ( Fig. 5F View FIGURE 5 ) or at most only transepisternal line obscurely differentiated. Legs ( Fig. 5F View FIGURE 5 ) with trochanters and trochantelli pale; pro- and mesofemora mostly dark but narrowly pale apically, and metafemur entirely dark; pro- and mesotibiae entirely pale, but metatibia almost entirely dark, only narrowly pale basally for distance at most about equal with apical width of tibia; tarsi pale. Fore wing ( Fig. 5H View FIGURE 5 ) with costal cell dorsally setose along entire leading margin ( Fig. 5I View FIGURE 5 ); basal cell variably densely, but more-or-less uniformly setose with dark setae; disc with large, quadrangular speculum ( Fig. 5H View FIGURE 5 : spc), the ventral surface with only a few setae anteriorly adjacent to parastigma apically, and closed posteriorly by line of dark setae.

Species concept. Our concept of A. dexingensis is based on examination of the female holotype and one remaining female paratype (FAFU) from Jiangxi Province, China as detailed by Peng et al. (2017).

Non-type material examined. Regional. Fujian: Fuzhou City, 22.V.1956 (1♀ IZCAS), 1.VI.1956 (2♀ IZCAS). Houzhai, Daiyun Mountains, Dehua County, 905 m, 25.VIII.2015, Malaise trap, L. Peng (1♀ FAFU). Yashu Moun- tains, Ninghua County, 5–13.I.2017, L. Peng (2♀ FAFU). Hainan: Yunyue Lake, Danzhou City, 20.VIII.2004, B. Lv (1♀ IZCAS). Taiwan: Kaohsiung City, field collected 25.V.2017 from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs and laboratory reared on Samia cynthia eggs, 10.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu (2♀, 5♂ CNC). Miaoli County, field collected 24.V.2017 and laboratory reared on Tessaratoma papiliosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (1♀, 2♂ CNC). Taichung City, 8.V.2017, field col- lected/reared from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (3♀ CNC). Taichung City, field collected 25.V.2017 from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs and laboratory reared on Samia cynthia eggs from F1 generation, 12.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu (2♀, 8♂ CNC). Wufeng District, Taichung City, 24.V.2017, J.-C. Hsu (1♀ CNC). Taipei, 12.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu, ex. Tessaratoma papillosa eggs (4♀ CNC). Taipei, laboratory reared 24.VI.2007 on Samia cynthia eggs from F1 generation field collected from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (1♀ CNC). Taipei City, VIII.2016, L.-J. Wang (9♀ CNC). Taipei City, Da′an District, 10.VII.2016, J.-C. Hsu (1♀ CNC). Taipei Botanical Garden, Zhishanyuan, Shilin, Taipei City, 38 m, 25°06′09″N 121°31′53.4″E, L.-J. Wang and J.W. CHANG, egg trap, ex. laboratory reared Samia cynthia eggs, 13.IX.2016 (2♀, 3♂ CNC). National Taiwan University, Taipei City, 8.VI.2017, J.-C. Hsu (2♀ CNC).

Extralimital. INDIA. Orissa: Jharsuguda, Badmal, 13.XII.2007, F.R. Khan, Anastatus ramakrishnai det. T.C. Narendran, 2010 (3♀ CNC)

Distribution. ORIENTAL: China (Fujian, Hainan, Jiangxi, * Taiwan), * India (Orissa).

Hosts. HEMIPTERA . Tessaratomidae : * Tessaratoma papillosa . LEPIDOPTERA . Lasiocampidae : Dendrolimus kikuchii Matsumura, 1927 ( Sheng et al. 1997). Saturniidae : * Samia cynthia (Drury, 1773) (factitious host).

Remarks. Among the species we recognise from China, females treated as A. dexingensis are very similar to those of A. shichengensis , which have the mesoscutal lateral lobe dorsolongitudinally setose and sculptured ( Fig. 23E View FIGURE 23 : arrow) similar to A. dexingensis females ( Fig. 4D View FIGURE 4 ), but the profemur abruptly angulate apically ( Fig. 23H View FIGURE 23 ) rather than having a spine-like denticle apically (cf. Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 : arrow). Females of A. formosanus have an apically spine-like denticulate profemur ( Fig. 9A View FIGURE 9 : arrow) similar to A. dexingensis females, but have a differentiated, bare and smoother, more minutely mesh-like coriaceous, dorsolongitudinal region anterior to the posteromedian carina ( Figs 8B, D View FIGURE 8 ). Females of A. dexingensis have the mesoscutal lateral lobe distinctly roughened, more-or-less uniformly reticulate-imbricate to reticulate-rugose, and setose anterior to the posteromedian carina ( Figs 4B, D View FIGURE 4 ) (see also under A. shichengensis ). Additionally, A. formosanus females always have a comparatively broad hyaline cross band with entirely white setae and with the apical margin of the band broadly curved similarly to the basal band ( Figs 8G, H View FIGURE 8 ), whereas females of A. dexingensis often have at least a few dark, isolated setae medially within the cross band ( Fig. 4G View FIGURE 4 ) and sometimes a more-or-less complete band of dark setae ( Fig. 4I View FIGURE 4 ); and then the cross band is comparatively narrow and/or with the apical margin distinctly angulate medially relative to the basal margin ( Figs 4H, I View FIGURE 4 ). Finally, the scrobal depression of A. formosanus females ( Figs 8C, E View FIGURE 8 ) usually has slightly better delineated (more angulate than rounded) dorsolateral margins than does the scrobal depression of females we identify as A. dexingensis ( Figs 4C, E View FIGURE 4 ), as noted by Peng et al. (2017). Most females we identify as A. dexingensis are also somewhat smaller, only about 2.5 mm in length, than most observed A. formosanus females, which are usually at least about 3.5 mm in length, though a couple of observed females of both species are similar in size to typical females of the other species. Even though body size overlaps among females of the two species, the size variation at least demonstrates that the mesoscutal lateral lobe sculpture and setal pattern is not size correlated.

Sheng et al. (1997) did not rear or describe males when they described A. dexingensis , but reared material from Taiwan with associated sexes suggests that males are also very similar to those of A. formosanus . Males of these two species and those of A. orientalis are differentiated in part by having one or more of the basal flagellomeres distinctly paler, more-or-less orange, than more apical flagellomeres, so that the multiporous plate sensilla contrast in colour with the surrounding cuticle ( Figs 5D View FIGURE 5 , 9F View FIGURE 9 , 21G View FIGURE 21 ). Males we recognize as A. shichengensis have a similar fore wing setal pattern ( Figs 24H, I View FIGURE 24 ) and similar flagellar structure ( Figs 24E, F View FIGURE 24 ) as males of A. dexingensis ( Figs 5D, H, I View FIGURE 5 ), but have an entirely dark flagellum ( Fig. 24E View FIGURE 24 ) unlike A. dexingensis males ( Fig. 5D, F View FIGURE 5 ). Males of A. orientalis are readily differentiated by having entirely or almost entirely pale legs ( Fig. 21B View FIGURE 21 ), whereas males of A. dexingensis are readily differentiated from those of A. formosanus by having the costal cell setose along its entire leading margin ( Fig. 5I View FIGURE 5 ) rather than only within its apical half or less ( Fig. 9I View FIGURE 9 ) and the speculum closed posteriorly by a line of distinct setae ( Fig. 5H View FIGURE 5 : mcf) rather than being open posteriorly ( Fig. 9I View FIGURE 9 ) or only partly, inconspicuously closed by white setae.

The three females we identify as A. dexingensis from the state of Orissa, India, which were identified as A. ramakrishnai by T.C. Narendran, brings into question the validity of the name A. dexingensis relative to A. ramakrishnai ( Mani, 1935) , originally described from India. The three females have a profemoral denticle plus a fore wing setal/colour pattern similar to Fig. 4I View FIGURE 4 , reticulate-rugose and setose mesoscutal lateral lobes similar to Fig. 4D View FIGURE 4 , and a comparatively poorly developed scrobal depression such that the dorsal limit appears to be separated from the anterior ocellus by at least twice the longitudinal diameter of the ocellus as in Fig. 4C View FIGURE 4 . The original description of A. ramakrishnai and the illustration of the fore wing provided by Mani (1935, fig. 7) are insufficient to be certain as to the species identity. Hayat (1975, figs 1C, F) did, however, re-examine the broken, slide mounted holotype of A. ramakrishnai and described and illustrated the profemur as having a spine-like denticle, which supports the possible synonymy of A. dexingensis under either A. ramakrishnai or A. formosanus . The holotype was described as 2 mm in length, which might support a greater likelihood of conspecificity with A. dexingensis than with A. formosanus , but a medial region of dark setae within the fore wing hyaline band, which is often characteristic of A. dexingensis females, was neither described nor illustrated by Mani (1935, fig. 7), Narayanan et al. (1960), Hayat (1975, fig. 1B), or Narendran (2009, fig. 59). Further, Hayat (1975) newly described the male of A. ramakrishnai , and described the antenna as dark brown with the scape pale, which is more similar to A. shichengensis males ( Fig. 24E View FIGURE 24 ) than A. dexingensis ( Fig. 5D View FIGURE 5 ) or A. formosanus ( Fig. 9F View FIGURE 9 ) males. The CNC specimens identified as A. ramakrishnai by Narendran are also not ones listed as examined in Narendran (2009) and it is therefore possible that Narendran misidentified the Orissa females and though they may be conspecific with our females from China they are not conspecific with A. ramakrishnai . Clarification of the species concept and nomenclatural status of A. ramakrishnai requires additional study of the holotype female and a wider revision of Anastatus from the Oriental region to more confidently determine the number of species with features similar to what we treat as A. dexingensis .