Goetheana incerta Annecke 1962
Creators: name: Gumovsky, Alex
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2016
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Eulophidae
Goetheana
Goetheana incerta

description: Goetheana incerta Annecke, 1962
(Figs 1 D, 2D, 3E, G, 4B)
Goetheana incerta Annecke, 1962: 277.
Goetheana incerta Annecke; Triapitsyn 2005: 265.
Diagnosis. Mesosoma uniformly dark brown, head pale brown to yellow in reflected light (Fig. 1 D); fore wing chaetotaxy similar to that for G. shakespearei (Fig. 2 D). Male with scape comparatively slender, 3.2–3.5× as long as broad, and somewhat wider basally than apically (Fig. 3 E, G).
Comparative notes. In addition to the detailed original description by Annecke (1962), Triapitsyn (2005) provided an appropriate diagnosis for males of G. i n c er t a based on newly collected specimens from South Africa, but not for females. As stated above, re-examination of the type series in SANC, as well as newly collected females failed to confirm the differences between females that Annecke (1962) attributed to G. incerta and G. shakespearei. Also, despite Annecke’s identification of some females collected in Skukuza in 1959 and 1960 as G. shakespearei and others as G. incerta, there are three females (see below under G. shakespearei / G. i n c er t a) that were not identified to species by Annecke. This suggests a largely subjective specific attribution of the collected females and lack of any distinct characters matching the males and females of these two species, despite efforts to propose some.
Goetheana incerta was described from the holotype female and six paratypes (4 females and 2 males) collected in South Africa (Skukuza, Mpumalanga Province). In view of the difficulties discussed above concerning separation of the females of G. i n c er t a and G. shakespearei, the holotype of G. incerta presents a challenge. Because females of the two species are inseparable so far, it is possible that the holotype and paratypic males, which are actually the bearers of the species diagnostic characters (e.g. a slender antennal scape, Fig. 3 G), are not conspecific. The fact that the female holotype of G. i n ce r t a is part of the sample (Skukuza, suction traps, 1959, 1960) that contained males of both species makes this possibility even more likely.
Consequently, further taxonomic and nomenclatural acts may be needed to clarify the situation with the species reported here as G. incerta. I presume that such acts must be preceded by rigorous molecular genetics and morphometric research. The field-collected samples containing the males of both G. incerta and G. shakespearei, also contain the females which are expected to be conspecific with either of the species. The males and females may be matched using specific (chiefly mitochondrial) molecular markers, and the voucher specimens, as well as the type series of G. incerta, may further be measured for a representative matrix of measurements. Then the data should, for instance, become subjected to multivariate ratio analysis (as in Baur & Leuenberger 2011 and Baur et al. 2014). The resultant scatterplots may be expected to reveal whether the female holotype of G. incerta clusters with the females attributed to G. incerta by molecular markers, or not. If such or similar studies do not shed light to the problem, then perhaps a petition to the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature should be addressed with the request to cancel the holotype female of G. incerta and then designate a neotype male. However, I consider such action as premature for now.
Material examined. Type series: Holotype ♀, slide with body under one small ring cover slip, wings under another cover slip, Republic of South Africa, “ Goetheana incerta Annecke, HOLOTYPE., det. D.P. Annecke, University of Pretoria ”, “T15, South Africa: Skukuza, Tvl., iii.1960, D. P. Annecke, Suction trap ”, 734 [in light pencil], “734” (printed on rear of label). Paratypes: 2 ♀, slides with body and body parts under separate small ring cover slips, ibid., but “ i.1960 ”; 2♀, ibid., but “ xii.1959 ”; 2 Ƌ (one is labeled as “ALLOTYPE”), ibid., “ xii.1959 ” (SANC). Non-type, reared specimens (females are putatively assumed to be conspecific with the males; until not proven to be so): ♀ (in gelatine capsule; mentioned by Grout, Stephen 1995), Swaziland, “ SWAZILAND, Tshaneni, Inyoni Yami Irrigation Scheme, ii.1995 (P.R. Stephen), ex Scirtothrips aurantii on Valencia oranges”, “C 736”, “ SANC Pretoria Database No. HYMC 00736 ”, “ Goetheana incerta Annecke Det., O.C. Neser & G.L. Prinsloo, 1995 ”; ♀, slide with body under one small ring cover slip, wings, head and antennae under another cover slips each, “ Goetheana incerta Annecke, Det. GP+OCN 95, JOB 1995/38, C. 736, ii.1995 P.R. Stephen, Ex Scirtothrips aurantii, Valencia ”; Ƌ, slide with body under one small ring cover slip, wings, head and antennae under another cover slips each, “JOB 1995/38, C. 736, SWAZILAND ”; Ƌ, slide with body under one small ring cover slip, wings, head and antennae under another cover slips each, Republic of South Africa, Nelspruit, “ Goetheana incerta Annecke, JOB 1997/68, Nelspruit, Crocodile Valley, 26.ii.97, T. Grout, Scirtothrips aurantii on Caesalpinia pulcherrima, 1”; 2 ♀, both specimens mounted under same small ring cover slip, ibid.; Ƌ, slide with body under one small ring cover slip, wings, head and antennae under another cover slips each, ibid., but “ 16.II.1997 ” and “2” (SANC).
Other material: Ƌ, Republic of South Africa, Limpopo Province, nr. Phalaborwa, Palabora Copper Mine area, yellow pan traps, “ Dolerite road”, 06–09.XII.2014 (A. Gumovsky); 3 Ƌ, Limpopo Province, Phalaborwa, Molengraaf Farm between Palabora Copper Mine and Phalaborwa town, yellow pan traps, 25.V.2014 (A. Gumovsky & C. Davies); Ƌ, Mpumalanga Province, nr. Barberton, mist-belt forest patch nr. Agnes Mine, 12.V.2014 (A. Gumovsky) (BMNH, SANC); 7 Ƌ, Namibia, ~ 20 km SE Tsumeb, Baltimore Farm, yellow pan traps, 18–23.VIII.2014 (A. Gumovsky); 12 Ƌ, Tsumeb vicinity, Dundee Precious Metals property, “ Mouse place” site, semi-arid Karst Woodland, Dichrostachys cinerea shrub area, yellow pan traps, 14–20.VIII.2014 (A. Gumovsky) (SIZK, BMNH); 3 Ƌ, Tsumeb vicinity, Dundee Precious Metals property, “ Black soil”, semi-arid Karst Woodland, Dichrostachys cinerea shrub area, yellow pan traps, 19–28.VIII.2014 (A. Gumovsky) (RMCA, SANC); Ƌ, Zambia, South Luangwa, nr. Mfuwe, ~ 10 km E of Mfuwe, Malimba Village vicinity, 12.XII.2014 (A. Gumovsky) (SIZK); Ƌ, Uganda, Semuliki National Park, 670 m, ~ 1 km W of Ntandi, forest, 15.III.2013 (A. Gumovsky); 6 Ƌ, Entebbe, National Botanical Garden, sweeping, 11.V.2015 (A. Gumovsky) (SIZK, RMCA); 17 Ƌ, Senegal, Dakar, Botanical Garden of the Cheikh Anta Diop University, near pond, 03.IV.2008 (A. Gumovsky); Ƌ, SE Dakar, 10.IV.2008 (A. Gumovsky) (SIZK).
Hosts. Grout & Stephen (1995) reported G. incerta as a parasitoid of the citrus thrips (Scirtothrips aurantii Faure) in Swaziland and South Africa and described its life cycle. Their voucher specimens are deposited in SANC and were examined during this study. The females are treated here as G. incerta based on the fact that they were reared together with the distinguishable males of this species. However, this male-female matching is rather tenuous taking into account the above mentioned simultaneous occurrence of G. i n ce r t a and G. shakespearei, and the fact that Goetheana species are solitary parasitoids such that individual thrips larvae from the same population may be parasitized by non-conspecific females.
Distribution. South Africa, Swaziland (Annecke 1962; Grout & Stephen 1995), Namibia, Zambia, Uganda, Senegal (new records).
description: Published as part of Gumovsky, Alex, 2016, Review of Afrotropical species of Goetheana Girault (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), with description of a new species, pp. 551-563 in Zootaxa 4147 (5) on pages 556-557, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4147.5.3, http://zenodo.org/record/257232