Empria improba
Creators: name: Liston, Andrew
name: Mutanen, Marko
name: Heidemaa, Mikk
name: Blank, Stephan M.
name: Kiljunen, Niina
name: Taeger, Andreas
name: Viitasaari, Matti
name: Vikberg, Veli
name: Wutke, Saskia
name: Prous, Marko
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Tenthredinidae
Empria
Empria improba

description: Empria improba (Cresson, 1880) Fig. 22A-E Emphytus improbus Cresson, 1880: 11. &amp;female;, &amp;male;. Syntypes. Type locality: Nevada, USA. Lectotype &amp;male; (type No. 365) designated by Smith (1979). ANSP. Tenthredo (Poecilostoma) hybrida Erichson in: Ménétriés in: Middendorff, 1851: 60-61. &amp;female;. Syntypes (assumed). Primary homonym of Tenthredo (Tenthredo) hybrida Eversmann, 1847. Type locality: Udskoj Ostrog [Russia, Khabarovsk Krai, Udskoe]. Lectotype &amp;female; designated by Prous et al. (2011). ZIN. syn. nov. Poecilosoma plana Jakowlew, 1891: 31. &amp;female;. Type locality: Irkutsk, Russia. &amp;female;. Holotype. ZIN. syn. nov. Empria itelmena Malaise, 1931b: 23. &amp;female;, &amp;male;. Syntypes. Type locality: Kamtschatka, E[lisowo] [Russia, Kamchatka Krai]. Lectotype &amp;female; designated by Prous et al. (2011). NHRS. syn. nov. Empria camtschatica Forsius, 1928: 46-47. &amp;female;. Holotype. Type locality: Russia, Kamchatka Krai, Bolsheretsk [Bolscheretsk]. MZH. syn. nov. Notes. The species boundaries between willow-feeding taxa of the <i>Empria immersa</i> group (<i>E. immersa</i>, <i>E. camtschatica</i>, <i>E. plana</i>, and <i>E. improba</i>) have proved to be difficult to elucidate (Prous et al. 2014, 2020). In Fennoscandia, two forms can commonly be found at the same time and place (Prous et al. 2014): <i>E. immersa</i> with a dark pterostigma and short antenna, and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with a pale pterostigma and long antenna. These two forms can also be distinguished by larval morphology (Fig. 22). Based on <i>ex ovo</i> rearings by M. Prous (two females from Sweden and Estonia) and <i>ex larva</i> rearings by Ponomarev (2022) of <i>E. immersa</i>, and <i>ex ovo</i> rearings by M. Prous of <i>E. camtschatica</i> (using two females from Sweden), the main difference seems to be in head coloration: <i>E. immersa</i> with an occipital fleck or stripe (Fig. 22F-M) and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with occipital and parietal stripes (Fig. 22A-E). An additional difference may be that glandubae (white conical warts) are more prominent in <i>E. immersa</i> than in <i>E. camtschatica</i>. Although based on limited specimen sampling, genome scale data (Prous et al. 2020) support <i>E. immersa</i> as a distinct species most consistently compared to the other species in the <i>E. immersa</i> group. In Fennoscandia, taxonomy is complicated by the presence of occasional specimens identifiable as <i>E. plana</i>, somewhat intermediate in morphology between <i>E. immersa</i> and <i>E. camtschatica</i> (pterostigma like <i>E. camtschatica</i>, saw intermediate). Genome scale data of one <i>E. plana</i> female from Sweden do not indicate affinity with <i>E. immersa</i>, but do show at least some affinity with <i>E. camtschatica</i> (Sweden), <i>E. improba</i> (Canada), and one other <i>E. plana</i> (Hokkaido, Japan) (see fig. 5 in Prous et al. 2020). Given the above, we synonymize <i>E. plana</i> and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with <i>E. improba</i>, because clear boundaries between these taxa cannot at present be drawn. Thus, in Europe, the specimens with dark pterostigma, short antennae and more prominent serrulae of the saw can be identified as <i>E. immersa</i>, and those with pale pterostigma, usually longer antennae, and less prominent serrulae as <i>E. improba</i> (see Prous et al. 2014). In North America, however, at least some <i>E. improba</i> specimens look externally more like <i>E. immersa</i> (dark pterostigma and metafemur), while the serrulae of the saw resemble <i>E. camtschatica</i>. Lacourt (2020) suggested that <i>E. camtschatica</i> could be a synonym of <i>E. improba</i>, but genetically these taxa are not necessarily closer to each other than they are to <i>E. plana</i> (Prous et al. 2020). If the circumscription of <i>E. improba</i> as proposed here is considered incorrect, then it remains unclear how many additional species should be recognized, and how these should be delimited. For example, in Europe the morphological distinction between <i>E. camtschatica</i> and <i>E. plana</i> is not clear, although these forms can be more reliably distinguished from <i>E. immersa</i>.
description: Published as part of <i>Liston, Andrew, Mutanen, Marko, Heidemaa, Mikk, Blank, Stephan M., Kiljunen, Niina, Taeger, Andreas, Viitasaari, Matti, Vikberg, Veli, Wutke, Saskia &amp; Prous, Marko, 2022, Taxonomy and nomenclature of some Fennoscandian Sawflies, with descriptions of two new species (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), pp. 151-218 in Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift 69 (2)</i> on page 151, DOI: 10.3897/dez.69.84080
description: {"references": ["Smith, DR, 1979. Nearctic sawflies. IV. Allantinae: Adults and larvae (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae). Technical Bulletin, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC 1595: 1 - 172", "Prous, M, Heidemaa, M, Shinohara, A, Soon, V, 2011. Review of the sawfly genus Empria (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae) in Japan. ZooKeys 150: 347 - 380, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.150.1968", "Prous, M, Blank, SM, Heibo, E, Loennve, OJ, Taeger, A, Vardal, H, Liston, A, 2014. Sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta) newly recorded from Sweden. Entomologisk Tidskrift 135 (3): 135 - 146", "Prous, M, Lee, KM, Mutanen, M, 2020. Cross-contamination and strong mitonuclear discordance in Empria sawflies (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae) in the light of phylogenomic data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 143 (106670): 1 - 16, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2019.106670", "Ponomarev, AG, 2022. Babochki i zhuki Moscovskoj oblasti. Published on the Internet. http://insectamo.ru", "Lacourt, J, 2020. Symphytes d'Europe. Hymenopteres d'Europe 2. N. A. P. Editions, Verrieres-le-Buisson"]}