Andricus chiricahuensis Melika, Nicholls & Stone 2021, sp. nov.
Creators: name: Melika, George
name: Nicholls, James A.
name: Abrahamson, Warren G.
name: Buss, Eileen A.
name: Stone, Graham N.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Cynipidae
Andricus
Andricus chiricahuensis

description: Andricus chiricahuensis Melika, Nicholls & Stone, sp. nov.
Figs. 57–76
urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 6DF08968-12DB-48F7-B694-FC0E83AB4E67
Type material: HOLOTYPE female “ USA, Arizona, Chiricahua Mnts., 2008.04.07. leg. J. Nicholls, Code AZ1889, spAZb20; ex Quercus gambelii ”. PARATYPES: two females and 10 males with the same labels as the holotype. The holotype female and 3 males are deposited at the USNM, 2 females and 7 males at the PHDNRL.
Etymology. The species is named after the site where it was found, the Chiricahua Mountains in Arizona.
Diagnosis. Type material of this species was obtained from a mixed rearing of galls of this species and Neuroterus stonei. Hence exact details of the gall are unknown, but it is probably a small round bud gall, easily confusable with the gall induced by N. stonei (Fig. 434) and the sexual generation of the closely-related species Andricus coconinoensis (Fig. 88). Neuroterus stonei has no transcutal articulation, like all other Neuroterus species while A. chiricahuensis, like all other Andricus, has a distinct transscutal articulation. Adults somewhat resemble A. coconinoensis; however, in A.chiricahuensis the mesosoma is dark brown, the mesoscutum uniformly alutaceous, notaulus incomplete, extending to 2/3 of mesoscutum length, the median mesoscutal line absent, the mesoscutellum trapezoid, lateral propodeal carinae bent outwards at mid height; the metasoma is higher than long in lateral view, while in A. coconinoensis the mesosoma is uniformly light brown, the mesoscutum smooth, glabrous, notaulus complete, the median mesoscutal line in the form of a short triangle, the mesoscutellum rectangular, lateral propodeal carinae bent slightly outwards in their posterior half; the metasoma is longer than high in lateral view.
Description. Sexual female (Figs. 57–60, 64, 66–71). Head, mesosoma dark brown to black, with lighter propleuron; clypeus, mandibles, tegulae brown; maxillary and labial palpi, antennae yellow; metasoma dark brown; legs light brown, with coxae slightly darker at the base.
Head alutaceous, with a few setae, denser on lower face and postgena, 1.25× as broad as long and slightly broader than mesosoma in frontal view. 1.9× as broad as long in dorsal view, Gena alutaceous, not broadened behind eye, transverse diameter of eye 2.0× as broad as gena. Malar space alutaceous, glabrous, with parallel striae radiating from clypeus and reaching eye; eye 2.7× as high as length of malar space. Inner margins of eyes parallel. POL 1.5× as broad as OOL, OOL 2.3× as long as diameter of lateral ocellus and 1.4× as long as LOL, all ocelli ovate, of same size. Transfacial distance 1.1× as long as height of eye; diameter of antennal torulus 1.25× as long as distance between them, distance between torulus and eye 1.25× as long as diameter of torulus; lower face alutaceous, glabrous, without striae, with white setae, slightly elevated median area smooth, glabrous. Clypeus rectangular, smooth, glabrous, with few long white setae; ventrally rounded, not emarginate and without median incision; anterior tentorial pit small, rounded, epistomal sulcus distinct, deep, clypeo-pleurostomal line slightly impressed. Frons alutaceous, glabrous with few setae, without striae; interocellar area alutaceous, elevated. Vertex and postgena alutaceous, with white setae, occiput and postocciput smooth, glabrous, without setae; posterior tentorial pit large, ovate, deep, area below impressed; occipital foramen as high as height of postgenal bridge; hypostomal carina emarginate, continuing into postgenal sulci which strongly diverge, postgenal bridge anteriorly as broad as occipital foramen. Antenna slightly longer than mesosoma, with 12 flagellomeres, pedicel subglobular, flagellomeres broadened towards apex; F1 1.8× as long as pedicel and 1.2× as long as F2; F2 1.2× as long as F3; F3=F4, all subsequent flagellomeres, including F12 nearly equal in length; placodeal sensilla on F3–F12.
Mesosoma 1.2× as long as high. Pronotum smooth, glabrous, with row of dense setae along anterolateral margin, with a few delicate parallel striae posterolaterally; propleuron uniformly smooth, glabrous. Mesoscutum uniformly alutaceous, with a few white setae alongside notaulus; slightly longer than broad (greatest width measured across mesoscutum at level of base of tegulae). Notauli incomplete, extend to 2/3 of mesoscutum length, posteriorly deep, broader and converging; anterior parallel line invisible; parapsidal line indistinct; median mesoscutal line absent. Mesoscutellum trapezoid, slightly longer than broad, overhanging metanotum, posteriorly broader and rounded, uniformly alutaceous, with irregular rugae; mesoscutellar foveae separated by a narrow central carina, rounded, with smooth, glabrous bottom. Mesopleuron and speculum uniformly smooth, glabrous, with a few setae ventrally; mesopleural triangle alutaceous, with some rugae, with sparse white setae; dorsal axillar and lateral axillar areas smooth, with a few white setae; subaxillular bar smooth, glabrous, posterior part higher than height of metanotal trough; metapleural sulcus reaching mesopleuron in lower half of mesopleuron height, upper part of sulcus distinct. Metascutellum smooth, glabrous, as high as height of smooth, glabrous ventral impressed area, metanotal trough delicately coriaceous, glabrous, without setae; central propodeal area narrow, smooth, glabrous, without rugae; lateral propodeal carinae bent outwards at mid height; lateral propodeal area smooth, glabrous, with long white setae. Nucha with delicate sulci dorsally and laterally. Tarsal claws simple, without basal lobe.
Forewing longer than body, hyaline, margin with long, dense cilia, veins dark brown, radial cell open, 4.4× as long as broad; R1and Rs reaching wing margin; areolet triangular, closed, distinct; Rs+M distinct at 1/2 of distance to basalis and its projection reaching upper half of basalis.
Metasoma slightly shorter than head+mesosoma, higher than long in lateral view; second metasomal tergite extending to half the length of metasoma in dorsal view, with white setae anterolaterally, without micropunctures; subsequent tergites smooth, glabrous, with rare micropunctures. Hypopygium without micropunctures, prominent part of ventral spine of hypopygium short, as long as broad in ventral view, with a few short white setae ventrally. Body length 1.6–1.8 mm (n = 3).
Male (Figs. 61–63, 65, 72–76). Similar to female, but eyes bigger, ratio of malar space length to height of eye greater than in female; ocelli slightly bigger; POL 2.0× as long as OOL, LOL nearly equal in length to diameter of lateral ocellus; antenna with 13 flagellomeres, longer than body length, F1 slightly curved, apically slightly swollen, 1.65× as long as F2, subsequent flagellomeres shorter and all nearly of the same length, placodeal sensilla on F2– F13. Notaulus hardly traceable in the most posterior part of mesoscutum. Body length 1.5–1.7 mm (n = 10).
Gall. This species definitely induces bud galls on Q. gambelii, but we do not yet know the exact details of gall structure or appearance. It is most likely a globular, smooth gall, either greenish or pale brown.
Biology. Only a sexual generation is known, which induces bud galls on Q. gambelii; adults emerge in April. Since the described material came from a mixed rearing, species identification and matching of males with females was confirmed with DNA data (two males and one female, all with identical cytb sequences [OK346259 – OK346261] and identical ITS2 sequences [OK350625 – OK350627]).
Distribution. USA, Arizona, Chiricahua Mountains.
description: Published as part of Melika, George, Nicholls, James A., Abrahamson, Warren G., Buss, Eileen A. & Stone, Graham N., 2021, New species of Nearctic oak gall wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae, Cynipini), pp. 1-131 in Zootaxa 5084 (1) on pages 21-25, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5084.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/5800716