Cotesia Cameron 1891
Creators: name: Fagan-Jeffries, Erinn P.
name: Austin, Andrew D.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Braconidae
Cotesia

description: Genus Cotesia Cameron 1891
Type species
Cotesia flavipes Cameron, 1891: 185. For a complete list of synonyms and bibliography, see Fernández-Triana et al. (2020).
Comments
Cotesia is one of the largest genera of Microgastrinae and was previously treated as the glomeratus group of Apanteles sensu lato (s.l.). A detailed description of the genus can be found in Mason (1981), whilst supplementary notes, a discussion of putative relationships and a list of world species can be found in Fernandez-Triana et al. (2020). Members of the genus can be diagnosed by the absence of a fore wing areolet, possessing a short inflexible hypopygium and a short ovipositor, T1 generally parallelsided or broadening posteriorly (occasionally in the Australian fauna with T1 narrowing posteriorly but never to the extent as in Glyptapanteles) and T2 normally broad and rectangular. Often species have the propodeum with a medial carina, and the propodeum, T1 and T2 coarsely sculptured.
Host information for Australian species of Cotesia
In Australia, species of Cotesia are known to parasitise at least nine different lepidopteran families (Table 1), with some species appearing highly specialised on individual host species or genera, whilst others (e.g., C. ruficrus) are recorded from numerous genera within a single family. The host information presented below, and in the following key, are restricted to records from Australia; for extra-limital host records see references listed under the treatment of each species.
Key to the described species of Cotesia in Australia and Papua New Guinea
This key is based on adult females and should be treated with some caution due to the variable nature of some characters in Cotesia, and the limited number of specimens available for some species during the construction of the key. Wherever possible, morphological identification should be supported by COI barcoding or host information.
1. T1 evenly broadening towards posterior margin (Fig. 2A)................................................................2
– T1 mostly parallel sided or barrel shaped (Fig. 2C), in some species broadening on anterior 0.6–0.7 and then curving inwards to meet T2 (Fig. 2B)...............................................................................10
2. Scutellar disk with large, strong circular punctures (Fig. 3A).......................................................3
– Scutellar disk smooth or with small punctures associated with setae (Fig. 3B).............................4
3. T3 with only a single row of setae, often in posterior half (Fig. 4A) often row of setae is irregular or undulating [gregarious parasitoid of noctuid species]...................... C. ruficrus (Haliday, 1834)
– T3 with multiple rows of setae, particularly visible at lateral edges (Fig. 4B) [solitary parasitoid of Plutella xylostella]............................................................................... C. vestalis (Haliday, 1834)
4. Mesosoma dorsoventrally flattened, in lateral view its length more than 2.0 × its height (Fig. 5A) [scutellar disk completely smooth, no small punctures, anteromesoscutum punctures widely spaced (distance between punctures sometimes greater than diameter of punctures)].................5
– Mesosoma not dorsoventrally flattened, in lateral view its length less than 2.0 × its height (Fig. 5B) [scutellar disk with at least some micropunctures associated with setae]..........................6
5. Face projection between base of antennae slightly rounded, with smooth margin (Fig. 6C)......... ................................................................................................................. C. flavipes Cameron 1981 *
– Face projection between base of antennae less rounded, with margin appearing almost tri-lobed under high magnification (Fig. 6 A–B)....................................................... C. nonagriae (Olliff, 1893) *
* (see notes under C. nonagriae for explanation of difficulties in separating these two species)
6. Hind coxa and metasoma significantly paler than mesosoma, dorsal metasoma light brown to yellow (Fig. 28 A–B) [parasitoid of the native butterfly Ogyris zosine Hewitson, 1853].................................................................................................. C. rufiventris (Bingham, 1906)
– Hind coxa and metasoma as dark or only slightly paler than mesosoma. Dorsal metasoma dark....7
7. Ocelli small, OOL/posterior ocellus diameter ratio> 2.5 (Fig. 7A) [dorsal head smooth and polished with sparse setae, scutum punctate, propodeum strongly sculptured, T2 mostly smooth with some striate sculpturing].............................................................................. C. ocellata sp. nov.
– Ocelli normal sized, OOL/posterior ocellus diameter <2.4 (Fig. 7B)............................................8
8. Fore wing vein r shorter than 2RS [anteromesoscutum very strongly punctate reticulate along notauli, much smoother in centre and lateral areas, gregarious parasitoid of Agrotis munda (Walker,1857)].. ............................................................................................................. C. radiantis (Wilkinson, 1929)
– Fore wing vein r normally longer than, occasionally of similar length, to 2RS [anteromesoscutum punctate to punctate reticulate, slightly stronger along lines of notauli and smoother in centre and lateral areas].......................................................................................................................................9
9. Distal quarter of hind tibia darkened, including in lateral view [scutellum sometimes with small posteromedian band of rugosity, parasitoid of the introduced Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758) in Australia and therefore associated with agricultural crops and urban gardens]............................... ........................................................................................................ C. rubecula (Marshall, 1885)
– Hind tibia with only a very small darkened patch, mainly in dorsal view [scutellum without posteromedian band of rugosity; parasitoid of the native Uraba lugens Walker, 1866] ................................................................................................ C. urabae Austin & Allen, 1989
10. Fore wing vein 2RS extending past junction with r, creating a ‘stub’ (Fig. 23A) [r shorter than or approximately equal length of 2RS, T1 mostly parallel sided, broadening on anterior 0.6–0.7 and then curving inwards to meet T2; Fig 23B]............................................ C. philoeampa (Cameron, 1911)
– Fore wing 2RS not creating a ‘stub’ by extending slightly past junction [vein r equal in length or longer than 2RS]..........................................................................................................................................11
11. Anteromesoscutum relatively smooth, slightly punctate or punctulate, only generally sparse, small punctures (Fig. 8A)................................................................................................................12
– Anteromesoscutum densely sculptured, strongly and coarsely punctate or punctate reticulate (Fig. 8B)...........................................................................................................................................14
12. T3 densely setose for all of length............................................................ C. kazak (Telenga, 1949)
– T3 only sparsly setose, mostly in posterior one-third...................................................................13
13. Ventral hypopygium deeply emarginate (Fig. 18C) [gregarious parasitoid of the introduced Pieris rapae (Linnaeus, 1758)]....................................................................... C. glomerata (Linnaeus, 1758)
– Ventral hypopygium not emarginate [gregarious parasitoid of the native Mnesampela privata Guenée, 1858 on Eucalyptus spp.].......................................................... C. geometricae Austin, 2000
14. T3 pale (Figs 16A, 25A)................................................................................................................15
– T3 mostly dark or dark with pale lateral areas........................................................................16
15. T1–2 mostly pale, antennae pale [introduced into Papua New Guinea, parasitoid of the introduced Erionota thrax (Linnaeus, 1767)]..................................................... C. erionotae (Wilkinson, 1928)
– T1–2 mostly dark, antennae dark [Australia, parasitoid of the native Candalides delospila (Waterhouse, 1903)]............................................................................................ C. reidarum sp. nov.
16. Scutellum with small posteromedian band of rugosity (Fig. 9A)........................................................ ................................................................................. C. sp. nr icipe Fernández-Triana & Fiaboe, 2017
– Scutellum without small posteromedian band of rugosity (Fig. 9B)............................................... 17
17. Scutellar disk with very strong, distinct punctures scattered over whole area [anteromesoscutum, propodeum and T1–2 strongly sculptured, T3 densely setose in posterior two-thirds]................... ............................................................................................................................. C. tjapekki sp. nov.
– Scutellar disk smooth, or with only shallow punctures or dents normally associated with setae.......18
18. T3 with sparse setae only in posterior half [gregarious parasitoid of Delias aganippe (Donovan, 1805) and D. argenthona Fabricius, 1793]............................................. C. deliadis (Bingham, 1906)
– T3 with sparse or dense setae over all or at least posterior two-thirds of tergite...............................19
19. T2 ovoid, occasionally semicircle shaped, with very strong, wide crenulate border, T2 often with large punctures on most of tergite (Fig. 10 A–B)...............................................................20
– T2 semicircle shaped or trapezoid, border with T3 smoothly indented (Fig. 10D) or occasionally with fine shallow crenulate border (Fig. 10C), T2 often mostly smooth, with shallow and sparse punctures limited to the margins....................................................................................................21
20. Scutoscutellar sulcus with approximately 6–8 large pits [parasitoid of Anthela ocellata (Walker, 1855)]................................................................................................... C. anthelae (Wilkinson, 1928)
– Scutoscutellar sulcus with approximately 9–11 pits [gregarious parasitoid of Anthela connexa (Walker, 1855)] ........................................................................................... C. wonboynensis sp. nov.
21. Fore wing vein r subtly curved (Fig. 11B) [T1–2 mostly smooth, gregarious parasitoid of Epicoma contristis Hübner, 1823] ......................................................................................... C. scripta sp. nov.
– Fore wing vein r straight (Fig. 11A, C–D)......................................................................................22
22. Antennal flagellomere 14 length/width <1.5 (T1–2 mostly smooth)...................... C. lasallei sp. nov.
– Antennal flagellomere 14 length/width> 2......................................................................................23
23. Scutellar sulcus generally with eight very strong, large punctures, anteromesoscutum with reticulate rugose sculpturing medially (Fig. 12A) [gregarious parasitoid of Catopsilia gorgonphone (Boisduval, 1836)]................................................................................................................... C. medusae sp. nov.
– Scutellar sulcus generally with more than eight small, irregular punctures, anteromesoscutum punctate medially, with smooth spaces visible between punctures (Fig. 12B) [gregarious parasitoid of Opodipthera eucalypti (Scott, 1864)]........................................ C. australiensis (Ashmead, 1900)
description: Published as part of Fagan-Jeffries, Erinn P. & Austin, Andrew D., 2020, Synopsis of the parasitoid wasp genus Cotesia Cameron, 1891 (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae) in Australia, with the description of seven new species, pp. 1-70 in European Journal of Taxonomy 667 (667) on pages 4-12, DOI: 10.5852/ejt.2020.667, http://zenodo.org/record/3899324