Mymar ramym Donev & Triapitsyn, sp. n.
Creators: name: Donev, Atanas D.
name: Triapitsyn, Serguei V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2010
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Mymaridae
Mymar
Mymar ramym

description: Mymar ramym Donev & Triapitsyn, sp. n.
(Figs 1–5)
Mymar sp.: Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2001: 5 (as an undescribed species from Kyrgyzstan).
Type material. Holotype female [PUPB] on slide: BULGARIA, Blagoevgrad Region, 41°53’16’’N 23°31’16’’E, 790 m, 19.v.1988, A. Donev. Paratypes: BULGARIA, same data as the holotype [1 male on slide, PUPB]. KYRGYZSTAN: Chuy Province, Suusamyr Valley, W. side of Kichi-Korumdy River, 42°13’28’’N 73°41’31’’E, 2291 m, 16.viii.1998, C.H. Dietrich (vacuum, collector’s code 98.009.02) [1 male on point, UCRC]. Naryn Province, Alabuga River, 25 km W. of Baetov, 41°17’47’’N 74°39’20’’E, 1700 m, 16.vii.2000, C.H. Dietrich (vacuum, collector’s code 00.025.01) [1 male on point, UCRC]. Talas Province, Dzheruj River bridge (near Boo-Terek), 42°26’47’’N 72°45’00’’E, 1000 m, 16.vi.1999, C.H. Dietrich (vacuum, collector’s code 99.49.02) [1 female on slide and 1 female on point, UCRC].
Description. FEMALE (holotype and paratypes). Body length 862–914 µm. Body and appendages mostly yellowish brown, with following parts a little darker (brown): trabeculae, F1–F3 and clava, tip of ovipositor sheath, and distal tarsomere of all legs; F4–F6 notably lighter than F1–F3.
Head. Face with setae distributed as in Fig. 2.
Antenna (Fig. 1). Radicle short, fused with scape; scape long, with constriction in the middle; pedicel about as long as F1; F2 the longest funicle segment, much longer than combined length of F3–F6 plus clava, and also much longer than scape (in the holotype, ratio of length of F2:clava = 2.2:1, and ratio of F2:F3–F6 = 2.4:1; and in the slide-mounted paratype, ratio of length of F2:clava = 2.6:1, and ratio of F2:F3–F6 = 2.7:1); remaining funicle segments short (F3 the shortest, F6 the longest); all funicle segments without longitudinal sensilla; clava with 7 subapical longitudinal sensilla.
Mesosoma (Fig. 4). Pronotum entire, with at least 6 setae; mesoscutum with narrow notauli and lateral lobes each with one seta; scutellum subrectangular, wider than long, longer than mesoscutum, scutellar placoid sensilla closer to posterior margin of scutellum, not far apart from each other; each axilla with one seta; dorsellum about 0.2x as long as scutellum; propodeum smooth, a little shorter than scutellum, with a pair of widely separated setae about midway between anterior and posterior margins of propodeum.
Wings (Fig. 3). Forewing disc about 0.4x total length of wing, length:width ratio of disc about 3.8: 1 in the holotype (about 3.5: 1 in the slide-mounted paratype), disc with 48 long marginal setae in the holotype and 54 long marginal setae in the slide-mounted paratype; venation reaching level of 5th long marginal seta on anterior margin; basal (hyaline) part of disc bare except for 1 row of setae closer to anterior margin; apical dark spot almost 0.5x length of disc, with its apical half setose anterior to the complete submedian row of setae. Hind wing 0.27–0.28x length of forewing, with a narrow, distinct extension (stub) beyond hamuli but without a membrane or long setae on stub apex (only with a few very short setae along stub length); ratio of post hamuli stub length to entire hind wing length 0.37–0.38: 1 in the holotype and 0.3–0.4: 1 in the paratypes.
Metasoma (Fig. 4). Petiole smooth, about 6.4x as long as wide, its posterior half or so a little wider than its anterior half, about 2x as long as metacoxa; gaster longer than mesosoma; ovipositor about 0.8x length of gaster, not or just barely exserted beyond gastral apex.
Measurements of the holotype (µm). Body: 914; mesosoma: 305; petiole: 152; gaster: 335; ovipositor: 274. Antenna: scape: 251; pedicel: 61; F1: 67; F2: 325; F3: 28; F4: 30; F5: 37; F6: 49; clava: 146. Forewing: total length: 1189; disc length:width: 488:128; longest marginal seta: 415. Hind wing length: 329. Legs (given as coxa, femur, tibia, tarsus): fore: 67, 305, 299, 390; middle: 67, 305, 390, 360; hind: 104, 396, 476, 396.
MALE (paratypes). Body length 595–825 µm. Most non-sexually dimorphic morphological features similar to female except as follows. Antenna with flagellum brown; all flagellar segments more or less subequal in length, much longer than wide. Foretarsus 1.24x as long as metatarsus. Forewing disc 4.13x as long as wide, with 38 long marginal setae in the slide-mounted paratype. Hind wing (Fig. 5) with post hamuli stub length quite variable, its ratio to entire hind wing length 0.29–0.41:1. Gaster notably shorter than mesosoma.
Diagnosis. Mymar ramym sp. n. keys to couplet four in Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001), together with the Palaearctic species M. pulchellum Curtis and M. maritimum Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy. Females of the new species differ from females of all other Mymar species of the pulchellum group (i.e., those with the hind wing abbreviated in females to a short stub just beyond the hamuli and without a membrane or long apical seta(e)) by the relative length of the post hamuli stub to the entire length of the hind wing: at least 0.3: 1 in M. ramym but at most 0.2: 1 in M. pulchellum or M. maritimum (the stub is particularly short in the extralimital species, M. schwanni Girault). Pintureau & Iglesias Calvin (1996) show quite a long stub (their fig. 2C) in M. pulchellum but only the tip of the male hind wing is illustrated, and the relative length of the post hamuli stub to the entire length of the hind wing was not given. The common, widespread M. taprobanicum Ward differs from M. ramym in having a very long, filamentous (yet membraneless) post hamuli bearing usually 1 (sometimes 2) long, apical setae (Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2001).
We attribute minor morphological differences between the female holotype (from Bulgaria) and the female paratypes (from Kyrgyzstan), particularly in the proportions of the female antennal segments and the wings, to intraspecific variation.
Etymology. The specific name (a noun in apposition) is a reverse spelling of the generic name.
Comments. The opportunity is taken by the junior author to correct some errors in Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001). Fig. 15 should replace Fig. 11 in couplet two of their key (p. 5, bottom line). Also, after that publication the junior author examined many additional specimens of Mymar from the Holarctic region. Mymar venustum Girault rev. stat. is reinstated here as a valid species from previous synonymy under M. pulchellum by Annecke (1961). Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001), who doubted the validity of that synonymy, indicated the difference in the proportions of the female antennal segments between M. pulchellum and M. venustum. In both M. maritimum and M. pulchellum the antennal scape of the female antenna is shorter than F2, whereas in M. venustum it is about as long as F2. Further, it was discovered that in females of M. maritimum and M. venustum the hind wing is abbreviated as in M. pulchellum, but males have a narrow membrane with a few setae as in M. ermak Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy or M. regale Enock. Thus, records of males of M. regale from Primorskiy Kray, Russia, by Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001) were incorrect because these are in fact the previously unknown males of M. maritimum. The earlier record of M. regale from Primorskiy Kray by Pintureau & Iglesias Calvin (1996), who unfortunately did not indicate sex of the specimen(s), needs to be verified as a similar misidentification is likely. Mymar cincinnati Girault syn. n. is also synonymized here under M. venustum because they are just opposite sexes of the same Nearctic species with the pronounced sexual dimorphism of the hind wing described above. See Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy (2001) for information on their type specimens – both were described from single holotypes, a male and a female, respectively.
description: Published as part of Donev, Atanas D. & Triapitsyn, Serguei V., 2010, A new species of Mymar (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) from the Palaearctic region, with nomenclatural changes in the genus, pp. 64-68 in Zootaxa 2644 on pages 64-67, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.198645