Amphibolips durangensis Nieves-Aldrey & Maldonado 2012, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Pascual, E.
name: Maldonado-Lopez, Y.
name: Medianero, E.
name: Oyama, K.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2012
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Cynipidae
Amphibolips
Amphibolips durangensis

description: Amphibolips durangensis Nieves-Aldrey & Maldonado sp. nov.   
(Figs. 2A–G, 11C, 15A)  
 Type material. Holotype female (Fig. 15A). In the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain (MNCN), dissected and mounted on a stub. Cat. nº 2246. MEXICO, Durango, Palmito, N 23º 33' 49.4" W 105º 51' 08.8", 1977 m; ex gall Quercus scytophylla (Fagaceae), gall collected 08/07/2008, insect emerged 10/2008. Y. Maldonado leg. Paratypes: 1 female Durango, Loberas, 1948 m a.s.l ex gall Quercus scytophylla, gall collected 10/ 07/2008, insect emerged 10/2008, Y. Maldonado leg., dissected and mounted on a stub. In MNCN.   
 Etymology. Named after the Mexican state, Durango, where the materials were collected.   
 Diagnosis and comments. Closely related to Amphibolips castroviejoi Medianero & Nieves-Aldrey from Panama, being similar in colour and a majority of morphological characters. The two species share a similar forewing coloration pattern, which is predominantly infuscate, with a clear crossing band extending from the radial cell to the discoidal cell. The new species differ from A. castroviejoi in the clear crossing band being narrower as well as the costal cell and discoidal cell being less heavily infuscate. Both A. durangensis and A. castroviejoi differ from A. dampfi in the wide clear band extending across the forewing from the tip of the radial cell to the posterior part of the apical margin (Figs 11A, 11C), whereas the band is smaller and does not extend as far across the ventral margin of the wing in A. dampfi (Fig. 13A). Additionally, A. durangensis and A. dampfi differ from A. castroviejoi in exhibiting indistinct notauli, nearly lost in the sculpture, while the last species has a complete notauli, only lost on the coarse surface in the anterior one-third. Amphibolips dampfi exhibit the mesoscutellum strongly emarginated posteriorly, with a sharp horn projection in lateral view (Fig. 1D), while in A. duranguensis, the mesoscutellum is only moderately emarginated posteriorly (Fig. 2E).   
 Description. Body length 5.8 mm (N = 2) for females. Head, mesosoma, antenna and legs black. Metasoma chestnut blackish, hipopygium reddish. Forewing predominantly dark infuscate, excepting costal cell and the areas below cubital vein and between medial and cubital veins, which are lighter; an irregular wide clear cross band is present, extending transversally across wing from one third apical of radial cell to posterior margin of wing (Fig 11C).   
 Female. Head, coarsely rugose, pubescent; in dorsal view about 2 times wider than long. POL about as long as OOL, posterior ocellus separated from inner orbit of eye by 2.5 times its longest diameter. Head in anterior view (Fig. 2A) 1.2 times wider than high, gena slightly broadened behind eye. Vertex, frons, lower face, gena, and occiput with strong reticulate-rugose sculpture, irradiating carinae from clypeus not discernible; head moderately pubescent, with relatively long setae, except vertex and frons with sparse and shorter setae. Clypeus trapezoid, ventral margin strongly projecting over mandibles and slightly sinuate. Anterior tentorial pits well visible; epistomal sulcus and clypeo-pleurostomal lines slightly discernible. Malar space 0.6 times height of compound eye. Toruli situated mid-height of compound eye; distance between antennal rim and compound eye 1.1 times width of antennal socket including rim. Ocellar plate slightly raised.   
Mouthparts (Fig. 2A): mandibles strong, exposed; with dense setae in base, right mandible with three teeth; left with two teeth.  
Antenna (Fig. 2C–D), of moderate length, as long as 1/2 body length; with 13 antennomeres; last flagellar segment partially divided into two segments; flagellum not broadening towards apex; with relatively long, erect setae, and elongate placodeal sensilla (Fig. 2D). Relative lengths of antennal segments: 15:7:29:19:15:13:11:11:11:9:8:8:20. Pedicel (Fig. 2C), short, small, 0.5 as long as scape; F1 1.5 times as long as F2. F6–F10 longer than wide, F11 2.7 times longer than wide, 2.1 times as long as F10 (Fig. 2D). Placodeal sensillae on F5–F11, disposed in dense rows of 6–8 sensillae, only in half dorsal area of each flagellomere.  
Mesosoma. Coarsely reticulate rugose, in lateral view as high as long. Pronotum, moderately pubescent; lateral surface of pronotum with strong irregular reticulate rugose sculpture. Pronotum medially short (Fig. 2B); ratio of length of pronotum medially/laterally = 0.20. Pronotal plate indistinct dorsally (Fig. 2B).  
Mesonotum. Mesoscutum (Fig. 2E) barely pubescent and with strong rugose-reticulate sculpture. Notauli indistinct. An irregular, shallow, longitudinal median impression, crossed by transversal rugae, visible from anterior to posterior part of mesoscutum. Anteroadmedian signa quite visible, extended back to near one half of mesoscutum; parascutal carinae distinct. Transscutal fissure narrow. Mesoscutellum subquadrate, about 0.6 as long as mesoscutum. Scutellar foveae ellipsoidal about 0.3 as long as mesoscutellum, indistinctly separated medially, deep, crossed by irregular longitudinal rugae, the intervals smooth, posterior margins indistinct. Mesoscutellum strongly reticulate-rugose, with a median longitudinal impression and moderately emarginated at posterior margin (Fig. 2E); the emargination reaching posterior about one sixth of scutellum length. Axillula moderately pubescent, their anterior and posterior margins marked. Mesopleuron coarsely reticulate rugose, the rugae not as strong as mesoscutum. (Fig. 2F).  
Metanotum. Metapectal-propodeal complex. Metapleural sulcus reaching posterior margin of mesopectus at about mid-height of metapectal-propodeal complex (Fig. 2F). Metascutellum rugose; metanotal trough smooth and pubescent. Median propodeal area reticulate rugose and densely pubescent; lateral propodeal carinae indistinct. Nucha smooth medially.  
Legs. Densely pubescent; femora and tibiae robust; metafemur 2.6 as long as wide, strongly curved ventrally. Metatibia about as long as metatarsus; apical margin of metatarsomeres 1–4, with long strong erect setae. Metatarsal claws with strong triangular basal lobe or teeth.  
Forewing (Fig. 11C): 1.15 as long as body, radial cell 3.5 times longer than wide; open along anterior margin; areolet small, ovoid, obscured by infuscation. R1, Rs and M nearly straight, not reaching wing margin. Rs+M reaching basalis at its mid-height. First abscissa of radius (2r) and 2r-m curved. Apical margin with obsolete hair fringe.  
Metasoma (Fig. 2G), as long as head and mesosoma combined, in lateral view as high as wide. Second metasomal tergite covering about two third of metasoma, with band of micropuntures clearly visible in posterior one third; punctures visible on subsequent tergites; ventral area of second metasomal tergite moderately pubescent. Projecting part of hypopygial spine long (Fig. 2G); about 5 times as long as wide in lateral view; laterally with long setae, longer than spine width but not forming an apical patch.  
Male. Unknown  
 Gall (Figs.18C, 18D). A spindle-shaped gall with an elongated and narrow tip and base. Longitudinally, the surface of the gall is crossed by longitudinal ridges. The gall is monothalamic; the outer shell is thin but firm; internally, it has a spongy consistency, filling the entire gall (Fig. 18D). The larval cell is rounded and is embedded in the soft internal substance. Diameter of 54 x 43 mm on average). Forms on twigs of Quercus scytophylla. The gall closely resembles that of Amphibolips fusus Kinsey 1937, also described from Mexico, and was illustrated recently by Melike et al. (2012). However, the gall of A. duranguensis differs from the gall of A. fusus due to its much more elongated and narrow points, both at the tip and at base. Another difference is the gall surface, which is smooth in the gall of A. fusus, without longitudinal ridges.   
 Distribution. A. duranguensis was found at 1900 m a.s.l. in Durango state, Mexico.   
 Biology. Only females of the presumably sexual generation are known. The galls were collected in July, and the insects emerged in October.   
 Comment: We examined one female reared from a gall also developing on Quercus scytophylla, but collected in Durango, Loberas, on 18/07/2008, which is very similar to A. duranguesis and could be conspecific with this species. However, this specimen differs from A. duranguensis in the following ways: the clear crossing band is slightly different, being narrower between the radial and the medial veins and wider and regular between the medial and the cubital. The infuscate area on the apical margin is not as uniform as in the holotype.
description: Published as part of Pascual, E., Maldonado-Lopez, Y., Medianero, E. & Oyama, K., 2012, Revision of the Amphibolips species of Mexico excluding the " niger complex " Kinsey (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), with description of seven new species, pp. 1-40 in Zootaxa 3545 on pages 9-11