Glyptapanteles Ashmead 1904
Creators: name: Fagan-Jeffries, Erinn P.
name: McCLELLAND, Alana R.
name: Bird, Andrew J.
name: Giannotta, Madalene M.
name: Bradford, Tessa M.
name: Austin, Andrew D.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2022
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Braconidae
Glyptapanteles

description: Genus Glyptapanteles Ashmead, 1904
Glyptapanteles Ashmead, 1904: 147.
Glyptapanteles – Mason 1981: 105. — Austin & Dangerfield 1992: 32. — Arias-Penna et al. 2019 a: 561. For complete list of earlier synonyms and bibliography, see Shenefelt (1972) and Fernández- Triana et al. (2020).
Type species
By monotypy, Apanteles ashmeadi Wilkinson, 1928: 84, a replacement name for Glyptapanteles manilae Ashmead, 1904.
Diagnosis
The diagnosis by Fernández-Triana et al. (2020) works well for the Australian fauna and is as follows: “…fore wing without an areolet; propodeum that is either completely smooth (often) to more or less rugose (more rarely), with a median longitudinal carina that is entirely absent (often), partially defined posteriorly (often) to complete and strong (rarely), or no median carina but instead a series of very short carinae radiating from the nucha (rarely); T1 narrows towards the posterior margin, usually strongly (almost always), or more parallel-sided, or rounded at apex, as in some species of Protapanteles (rarely); T2 is almost always subtriangular or trapezoidal (rarely shaped differently); ovipositor and ovipositor sheaths are relatively short (usually) to moderately long (rarely); setae at apex of ovipositor sheaths relatively long (as long or longer than setae on hypopygium)” (Fernández-Triana et al. 2020: 36).
Key to the described species groups and to the morphologically distinct species of Glyptapanteles from Australia
This key is based on adult females. Due to there likely being many other undescribed species of Glyptapanteles in Australia, it should be treated with caution as undescribed species could possibly key to described species within this key. We feel that a morphological key is not particularly useful for this group, other than for separating the species groups which are quite distinct (e.g., the G. albigena species group, that has the gena with a pale spot), but we present one here for completeness. Ideally, morphological identifications should be supported with COI and wingless DNA barcodes. Species that come out together at a couplet are not reliably distinguished using morphology (e.g., couplet 7).
1. Gena with a pale spot (G. albigena species group) (Fig. 5 A-D) ...................................................... 2
– Gena without a pale spot (Fig. 5E) ................................................................................................... 8
2. Gena with a large pale spot (Fig. 5A–B) .......................................................................................... 3
– Gena with a small pale spot (e.g., Fig. 5C–D) .................................................................................. 4
3. Gena with a pale spot measuring at least one third of face height (Fig. 5A) ...................................... ........................................................ Glyptapanteles albigena Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Gena with a pale spot less than one third of face height (Fig. 5B) ..................................................... .................................................. Glyptapanteles sanniopolus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
4. T2 pale (e.g., Fig. 6A–E) ..................................................................... G. mnesampela Austin, 2000
– T2 dark (e.g., Fig. 6F) ....................................................................................................................... 5
5. Propodeum with median carina faintly indicated posteriorly and anteriorly (Fig. 7A); and gena with a barely visible pale spot (Fig. 5D) ....... Glyptapanteles harveyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Propodeum with median carina completely absent (e.g., Fig. 7B); gena with a clearly visible pale spot (e.g., Fig. 5C) ............................................................................................................................ 6
6. Hind femur mostly dark (sometimes with lighter area proximally) (Fig. 8A) ................................... ………. .............................. Glyptapanteles andamookaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Hind femur mostly light brown or pale (e.g., Fig. 8B) ..................................................................... 7
7. Mesosoma with strong red tinge (Fig. 9A) ......................................................................................... ................................................... Glyptapanteles ferrugineus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Mesosoma dark, no strong red tinge (e.g., Fig. 9B) ........................................................................... ......................................................... Glyptapanteles kittelae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov., Glyptapanteles austrinus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles aspersus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
8. T2 pale (e.g., Fig. 6A–E) .................................................................................................................. 9
– T2 dark (e.g., Fig. 6F) ......................................................................................................................11
9. T1 same colour as T2, extremely pale (Fig. 6B); propodeum with median carina clear and complete; hind coxa pale (G. eburneus species group, part) ............................................................................... ....................................................... Glyptapanteles eburneus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– T1 darker than T2, either dark or orange-brown (e.g., Fig. 6C–D); propodeum with median carina absent; hind coxa dark (G. mouldsi species group) ........................................................................ 10
10. T1 dark, S3–5 mostly pale or yellow other than hypopygium (which is dark); T3–5 mostly pale or yellow (Fig. 11A–D) ................ Glyptapanteles mouldsi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles dowtoni Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
– T1 orange to light brown, S5–7 dark (including hypopygium); T4–6 completely dark (Fig. 11E–F) ................................................................ Glyptapanteles rixi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
11. T1 pale; hind coxa pale (G. eburneus species group, part) ................................................................ ................................................... Glyptapanteles foraminous Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– T1 dark; hind coxa dark .................................................................................................................. 12
12. Anteromesoscutum with very sparse deep punctures, always with some smooth areas greater than diameter of punctures; T1 never wedge-shaped, propodeum coarsely rugose; sometimes with slight orange markings on postero-lateral anteromesoscutum (G. niveus species group) (e.g., Fig. 12A– B) .................................................................................................................................................. 13
– Anteromesoscutum normally with punctures denser than in Fig. 12A–B, smooth areas generally smaller than diameter of punctures; T1 variable, including sometimes wedge-shaped, propodeum variable, coarsely rugose to smooth; sometimes with strong orange markings on postero-lateral anteromesoscutum (e.g., Fig. 12C–D) ............................................................................................ 14
13. Hind coxa with strong punctures covering most of area; antennal flagellomeres all dark ................. .................................................... Glyptapanteles bradfordae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Hind coxa with only sparse punctures, particularly smooth anteriorly; antennal flagellomeres sometimes with white distal segments ................................................................................................ ................................................... Glyptapanteles cooperi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles niveus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
14. Postero-lateral anteromesoscutum with strong orange markings (Fig. 12C) [whole body strongly punctured, propodeum strongly rugose] ............................................................................................. ......................................................... Glyptapanteles baylessi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Postero-lateral anteromesoscutum without strong orange markings (e.g., Fig. 12D) [sculpturing of propodeum variable, sometimes strongly rugose] .......................................................................... 15
15. Ventral side of antennal scape (at least in distal half) darker than or the same colour as flagellomeres (e.g., Fig. 13A) ................................................................................................................................ 16
– Ventral side of antennal scape (at least in distal half) paler than flagellomeres (G. arcanus species group) (e.g., Fig. 13B) .................................................................................................................... 20
16. Fore wing veins r and 2RS narrow and long, each significantly longer than vein 2m and smoothly curved (not meeting at sharp angle) (Fig. 14A) .................................................................................. ................................................ Glyptapanteles kurandaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Fore wing veins r and 2RS each only slightly longer than vein 2m (Fig. 14B), sometimes meeting at sharp angle ...................................................................................................................................... 17
17. Tegula dark ........................................................................... G. deliasa Austin & Dangerfield, 1992
– Tegula pale....................................................................................................................................... 18
18. Maximum height of mesoscutellum lunules less than 0.64× maximum height of lateral face of mesoscutellum (Fig. 15A) [hind femur darkening posteriorly, propodeum smooth] ......................... .............................................................. Glyptapanteles drioplanetus Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2021 – Maximum height of mesoscutellum lunules approximately 0.75× maximum height of lateral face of mesoscutellum (e.g., Fig. 15B) [hind femur completely dark or mostly pale yellow with dark patch posteriorly, propodeum smooth or with some shallow indistinct sculpturing in centre] (G. austini species group) ................................................................................................................................. 19
19. Hind femur mostly pale with dark area posteriorly [propodeum smooth and shiny] ......................... .......................................................... Glyptapanteles guzikae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– Hind femur completely dark [propodeum smooth or with some sculpturing in centre] .................... .................................................... Glyptapanteles kingae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles austini Fagan-Jeffries & Bird sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
20. Propodeum with coarse rugose sculpturing over most of area ....................................................... 21
– Propodeum smooth, or with rugose sculpturing only in posterior half of centre, anterior half punctured or smooth ........................................................................................................................................ 22
21. T1 smooth ........................... Glyptapanteles goodwinnoakes Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
– T1 with strong or shallow rugose sculpturing .................................................................................... .................................................... Glyptapanteles lambkinae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov., Glyptapanteles arcanus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov., Glyptapanteles vergrandiacus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles erucadesolator Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
22. T1 with strong punctures in posterior half, punctures covering at least one third of posterior half of tergite ................................. Glyptapanteles rodriguezae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles ruhri Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
– T1 smooth and shiny, if punctures present then only very few and very sparse or confined to lateral edges, covering much less than one third of area of posterior half of tergite ..................................... ....................................................... Glyptapanteles wrightae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov., Glyptapanteles doreyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles lessardi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov.
These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them
Species groups assignments and diagnoses
Six species groups are designated based on a combination of molecular and morphological data.Diagnoses for these groups are given below and all of the treated species are then presented in alphabetical order.
description: Published as part of Fagan-Jeffries, Erinn P., McCLELLAND, Alana R., Bird, Andrew J., Giannotta, Madalene M., Bradford, Tessa M. & Austin, Andrew D., 2022, Systematic revision of the parasitoid wasp genus Glyptapanteles Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae) for Australia results in a ten-fold increase in species, pp. 1-116 in European Journal of Taxonomy 792 (1) on pages 9-17, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2022.792.1647, http://zenodo.org/record/6037052