Ecrizotes caudatus Thomson, 1876

Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan, Andriescu, Ionel & Manic, Gheorghe, 2024, The Afrotropical and West-Palaearctic species of Ecrizotes Förster (Hymenoptera: Pirenidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 970, pp. 1-37 : 12-13

Ecrizotes caudatus Thomson, 1876

Fig. 3

Henicetrus caudatus Thomson, 1876: 191 ; lectotype ♀, LUZN, designated by Graham 1969: 331, images examined.

Ecrizotes caudata – Schmiedeknecht 1909: 273; new combination.

Ecrizotes caudatus – Erdős 1947: 110.

Diagnosis

Female

All funiculars wider than long; Fu3 smaller than Fu2 and Fu4, but not anelliform ( Fig. 3E ); ventral margin of clypeus strongly convex ( Fig. 3D ); head in frontal view with gena buccate ( Fig. 3B ); hind tibia length about 5× width; gaster longer than combined length of head and mesosoma and strongly compressed laterally ( Fig. 3A ); tip of hypopygium incised ( Fig. 3G ); ovipositor sheath length about 0.5–0.6 × length of hind tibia.

Male

Unknown.

Material examined

BULGARIA • 8 ♀♀; “Bulgaria mer. / Pirin, Begovica, 1750m. / 1.-2.VIII.74 / Lgt. Dr. Aug. Hoffer ”; NMPC .

CZECH REPUBLIC • 1 ♀; “ Praha – Chuchle / Bohemia, 8.8.59 / J. Macek // sec. LT = H. caudatus Th. ♀ / Zd. Bouček det. 1962”; NMPC .

FRANCE • 1 ♀; “France, Htes Alp. / Queyras: Arvieu × / 18.7.90, Bouček // ♀ Ecrizotes monticola Först. / det. Z. Bouček, 1990”; NMPC .

Distribution

Germany ( Haas et al. 2021), as E. monticola ; Hungary ( Erdős 1947), Sweden (Thomson 1878), Bulgaria, Czech Republic, France (new records). The record from Germany was assessed based on the images provided by Haas et al. (2021) (see Taxonomic comments below).

Hosts

Unknown.

Taxonomic comments

We agree with Erdős (1947) that E. caudatus (and not E. caudata ) is the valid name of this species (see Etymology of Ecrizotes above). Both Bouček (1961: 58) and Graham (1969: 331) consider Henicetrus caudatus a probable junior synonym of E. monticola , differing in details such as a slightly longer gaster, hypopygium and ovipositor. Although recorded as a valid species in Noyes (2019) and UCD Community (2023), most users presumably followed Graham’s view and recorded this species as E. monticola (see Distribution). Initially, we followed the same species concept of E. monticola and considered the possibility to describe a new species that differed from E. monticola mainly in having a shorter ovipositor and a more reduced Fu3. However, after examining (1) a paralectotype of E. monticola ( Figs 11G–I ), (2) a specimen compared with the lectotype of E. caudatus by Z. Bouček ( Fig. 3H–I ), and (3) several specimens that could be separated in two groups based on the length of the ovipositor (without intermediate forms), we decided for the most conservative approach and regard both E. caudatus and E. monticola as valid, with the potentially new species falling within the variability of E. monticola . Consequently, we consider E. caudatus as having a longer ovipositor sheath (0.5–0.6 × the length of hind tibia), a longer and more laterally compressed gaster (at least slightly longer than head plus mesosoma), and Fu3 only moderately reduced ( Fig. 3 ); we regard E. monticola as having a shorter ovipositor sheath (0.3–0.4× the length of the hind tibia), a shorter and mostly uncompressed gaster (at most as long as head plus mesosoma in un-collapsed specimens, or shorter in collapsed ones), and Fu3 usually anelliform ( Fig. 11 ). Interestingly, the images of the holotype of Henicetrus annellus Thomson, 1878 (considered a synonym of E. monticola by Graham (1969)) provided by ZMUL (https://ento.biomus.lu.se/search.php?taxa=henicetrus) show that in this species Fu3 is shorter than both Fu2 and Fu4 but not anelliform, while the ovipositor is considerably shorter than in E. caudatus . Another potential identification problem arises from the positional variability and collapse degree of the hypopygium, which can make the shallow incision present in E. caudatus and E. monticola ( Fig. 3G ) difficult or impossible to observe ( Fig. 3A, H ); nevertheless, E caudatus should be easily separated from the other Palaearctic species having a relatively long ovipositor sheath, i.e., E. filicornis and E. longicornis , by its much shorter funiculars. Perhaps future molecular studies could help elucidate the taxonomy of this species complex, but at the time of this study no fresh material was available.

Figures

Fig. 3. Ecrizotes caudatus (Thomson, 1876). A–G. ♀ (NMPC). A. Habitus, lateral view. B. Head, frontal view. C. Fore wing, dorsal view. D. Clypeus. E. Antenna (arrow indicates Fu3). F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Gaster, lateral view (arrow indicates hypopygium). H–I. Female specimen (NMPC), compared by Z. Bouček with the lectotype of H. caudatus (see text; arrow indicates Fu3).

Fig. 11. Ecrizotes monticola Förster, 1861. A–F. ♀ (MICO UCRC_ENT 00486453). A. Habitus, lateral view. B. Head, frontal view. C. Antenna (arrow indicates Fu3). D. Clypeus. E. Mesosoma, dorsal view. F. Fore wing, dorsal view. G–H. Female paralectotype (arrow indicates Fu3) (NMPC). I. Original label of paralectotype reading “Roseggthal” in Förster’s handwriting.