Smicromyrme dusmeti
Creators: name: Parejo-Pulido, Daniel
name: Romano, Marcello
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Mutillidae
Smicromyrme
Smicromyrme dusmeti

description: Smicromyrme dusmeti (Mercet, 1905), stat. resurr.
(Fig. 12)
Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti Mercet, 1905: 495, ♂; Dusmet 1915: 85.
Smicromyrme rufipes var. dusmeti: Giner Marí 1944: 95; Mingo & Compte 1963: 91.
Smicromyrme verhoeffi Suárez, 1959: 296, ♂; Lelej 2002: 67; Pagliano et al. 2020: 189, syn. Mingo & Compte 1963: 91.
Smicromyrme rufipes dusmeti: Lelej 2002: 72; Pagliano et al. 2020: 192.
Redescription. Holotype (Fig. 12). Body length: 8.0 mm. Colouration. Body black except for red mesonotum, scutellum, propodeum, external margin of tegulae and preapical part of mandibles; brownish tibiae and tarsi.
Pubescence. Head, including mandibles and the scape, covered with long white-silvery setae, more concentrated between anterior ocellus and antennal tubercles. Mesosoma with long white-silvery setae on pronotum, propodeum and a tuft of hair on scutellum. Mesonotum with short and recumbent white-silvery setae. Tergites with long apical fringes of white-silvery pubescence (Fig. 12A–B). T2 with long erect and recumbent white-silvery setae laterally, in addition to short recumbent brown setae dorsally. Legs covered with white-silvery setae. Tegulae with very few pale hairs located basally. Felt lines yellowish; felt line of T2 is 5.9 times longer than that of S2 and 0.4 times lateral length of T2.
Shape, punctuation and structure. Head squared, 1.5 times wider than long, well-developed behind the eyes with converging rounded sides. Frons, vertex and genae with large, and dense punctures, sparser on the posterior part of the vertex (Fig. 12C). Mandibles bidentate, with a large tooth beneath. Clypeus flat, shiny, with few, small punctures and with the anterior border notched in the centre (Fig. 12D). Eyes slightly projecting from the head profile; inner eye margin with deep notch; distance between posterior eye line and posterior headline 0.8 times eye length. Ocelli small, POL/OOL = 1.1; OL:MOD:LOD = 1.0:0.8:0.7; diameter of anterior ocellus 0.8 times smaller than the distance between it and posterior one (Fig. 12C). First flagellomere length 1.9 times the pedicel. Mesosoma elongated, narrower anterior; pronotum rounded anteriorly, thinner than mesonotum. Mesoscutum densely punctate. Tegulae shiny, with some very sparse punctures. Wings hyaline, slightly darkened at the apex; veins brown-yellowish; opaque, dark brown pterostigma; radial vein with a great thickening; second transverse cubital vein angled, also thickened (Fig. 12E). Propodeum elongate, with a smooth decline and posteriorly narrowing; reticulate, with larger cells in the anterior margin (Fig. 12A). T1 elongated, campanuliform with two pointed teeth on each side of the base; apical width as long as medial length; rough-looking dorsally, with strongly and coarsely punctate. S1 with a low medial, straight carina. T2 elongated, 0.8 times longer than wide, with sparse, small and superficial punctures, denser laterally (Fig. 12F). S2 with coarse punctures, denser than T2. Genitalia is shown in Fig. 12G.
Female. Unknown.
Type material. SPAIN. Holotype, ♂, Albarracín / july 1904 / Dusmet leg. / as Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti [MNCN _Ent 95154]. Holotype and paratypes of Smicromyrme verhoeffi: FRANCE. 3♂, Dieulefit, Drôme, Francia / 15-21.VII.1957 / P. M. F. Verhoeff leg. / Smicromyrme verhoeffi J. Suárez det. 1959 / Colección J. Suárez [MNCN _ Ent 96042–44].
Distribution. France, Spain (Pagliano et al. 2020; this study).
Iberian distribution. Teruel (García Mercet 1905)
Remarks. García Mercet (1905) described Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti, based solely on the specimen presented in this work, as a colour variety of Smicromyrme rufipes (Fabricius, 1787), from which it differs in having a completely reddish mesosoma. Garcia Mercet’s description lacks sufficient detail to accurately characterize the species or confirm its status as a subspecies of S. rufipes. Years later, Mingo & Compte (1963), based on personal comments from Suárez, mentioned S. rufipes var. dusmeti and assigned it a new synonym, S. verhoeffi Suárez, 1959. However, they did not provide any justification for this synonymy. Surprisingly, this fact has been overlooked in subsequent works (e.g. Lelej 2002; Pagliano et al. 2020). To clarify this situation, we studied the type specimens of Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti and S. verhoeffi reaching the following conclusions.
Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti exhibits notable differences with the typical form, rendering its taxonomic status inaccurate within the complex of species currently considered as S. rufipes (sensu Schmid-Egger & Schmidt 2021, 2022). Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti is characterized by a slender appearance, a predominantly red mesosoma (including the propodeum) (Fig. 12A–B), a flat clypeus surface (Fig. 12D), and a great thickening in the radial vein (Fig. 12E). In contrast, species within the S. rufipes complex, are not typically as slender, they exhibit a central carina on the clypeus, a black propodeum, and no thickening in radial nerve (see key to the males of Smicromyrme below). Genitalia of both species also differ in the apex of the volsella (ventral view), curved outwards in S. dusmeti (Fig. 12E; see Suárez 1959a: 103, Fig. 2B for an illustration of S. rufipes genitalia). Based on observational evidence, we propose upgrading Mutilla rufipes var. dusmeti (henceforth S. dusmeti stat. resurr.) to a valid species distinct from S. rufipes.
The aforementioned features position S. dusmeti as a well-distinguishable species within the Iberian Smicromyrme (see key to males Smicromyrme below), comparable only in appearance, colouration and radial vein thickening to S. merceti (André, 1903). Differences between the two species lie in the pubescence of T3, with S. merceti having a band of dense pale pubescence covering T3, while S. dusmeti has only long fringes; internal notch of the eye, very superficial in S. merceti; and distinct genitalia.
Moreover, we confirm the synonymy proposed by Mingo & Compte (1968) when comparing S. dusmeti with S. verhoeffi, They share a slender appearance, body colour pattern (Fig. 13A–B); head dimensions (S. verhoeffi range head width/length = 1.4–1.5, N = 3; Fig. 13D); clypeus sculpture (Fig. 13E); the great thickening in radial vein (Fig. 13C); sparse punctuation on T2 (Fig. 13F); pubescence pattern on metasoma (Fig. 13A); and genitala structure (Fig. 13G). For a more detailed description of S. verhoeffi see Suárez (1959b). The only difference between Spanish and French specimens is the size of ocelli, larger in S. verhoeffi (range POL/OOL = 1.3–1.4, OL:MOD:LOD = 1.0:1.3– 1.6:1.2–1.3, N= 3; Fig. 13D). Differences in ocelli size may be attributed to intraspecific variability.
description: Published as part of Parejo-Pulido, Daniel & Romano, Marcello, 2024, Notes on Iberian Mutillidae (Hymenoptera) part I: a new species, new records and some taxonomic and faunistic remarks, pp. 501-536 in Zootaxa 5477 (5) on pages 520-523, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5477.5.1, http://zenodo.org/record/12733366