Polynema (Dorypolynema) mendeli Girault 1913
Creators: name: Triapitsyn, Serguei V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Mymaridae
Polynema
Polynema mendeli

description: Polynema (Dorypolynema) mendeli Girault, 1913
(Figs 1–16)
Polynema mendeli Girault 1913a: 219. Type locality: Gordonvale (=Nelson), Queensland, Australia.
Polynema mendeli Girault: Girault 1913b: 99 (description, female); Girault 1913c: 118 (brief diagnosis, both sexes), 128 (key); New 1976: 10–11, 23 (key), 62 (illustrations, incorrect holotype information); Sveum 1982: 83–85 (unnecessary lectotype and paralectotype designations, redescription, discussion); Subba Rao & Hayat 1983: 139 (catalog); Dahms 1984: 807–808 (catalog, type and non-type specimen information); Lin et al. 2007: 45 (list); Anwar & Zeya 2012: 53 (distribution in India).
Polynema oophaga Subba Rao 1970: 666–667. Holotype female [NHMUK], examined during a visit in 2014. Type locality: Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Malaysia. Synonymized under P. mendeli by Sveum 1982: 83.
Polynema narendrani Subba Rao 1989: 159, 181 (illustrations). Holotype female [NHMUK], examined during a visit in 2014. Type locality: Kadalundhi (near Calicut), Kerala, India. Synonymized under P. mendeli by Hayat & Anis 1999: 318.
Polynema (Dorypolynema) mendeli Girault: Hayat & Anis 1999: 316 (key), 318–319 (synonymy, records from India), 327 (illustrations); Triapitsyn & Berezovskiy 2007: 40 (mentioned); Triapitsyn & Aquino 2010: 64 (brief diagnosis), 67–68 (key); Rehmat & Anis 2016: 140–141 (key), 147–148 (taxonomic history, synonyms, redescription of both sexes, distribution), 161 (illustrations); Triapitsyn 2018a: 160 (records from Taiwan).
Type material examined. Holotype male (Fig. 10) of P. mendeli [QMBA] on slide (Fig. 9) labeled: 1. “ Gonatocerus spinozai Girault Ƌ ♀ & Polynema: mendeli Ƌ nordaui ”; 2. “Sweeping along bank of jungled streamlet forest, Nelson NQ. 6.xii.1912 A. P. D.”; 3. “1045”; 4. [red circle] “ Lectotype designat. P. Sveum Polynema mendeli Girault ”. The specimen is not sufficiently cleared but otherwise is in a relatively good condition; it is mounted laterally with the left antenna (with three apical flagellomeres separated), one fore wing, and one hind wing detached from the body. The holotype is mounted under a damaged but otherwise almost complete coverslip together with the female holotype of Palaeoneura nordaui (Girault) as well as a female and a male of Lymaenon spinozai (Girault) (Mymaridae).
1 female paratype of P. oophaga [NHMUK] on slide labeled: “ Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 8.VII.1929, Entomol. Div. per G. H. Corbett, ova of tettigoniid on podi”.
Additional material examined from AUSTRALIA. QUEENSLAND: 2 non-type ♀ [QMBA] on A.A. Girault’s slides 2 and 3, label data given in Dahms (1984). Cape York Peninsula, Iron Range, 26–31.v.1971, S. R. Monteith [1Ƌ, ANIC].
Extralimital material examined. INDIA. KARNATAKA, Mudigere, 26.x–4.xi.1979, J.S. Noyes (B.M. 1979- 518) [1♀, NHMUK]. TAMIL NADU, Mudumalai Avian Sanctuary, 23–24.x.1979, J.S. Noyes (B.M. 1979-518) [1♀, NHMUK]. INDONESIA. Flores Island, EAST NUSA TENGGARA, Manggarai District, Sano Nggoang Subdistrict, Goio Leieng Village, 19.vii.1999, M.I. Wibawa (rice field) [1Ƌ, UCDC]. Java Island, BANTEN, Curug, 14–21.iv.1980, H. R. Gillespie [1Ƌ, CNC]. Sumatra Island, NORTH SUMATRA, Bandar Jalan Indrapura, Bah Lias Estates, 03°10’34.3’’N 99°20’13.6’’E, 43 m, 16–23.ii.2012, M. & C. Hoddle [1♀, 1Ƌ, UCRC]. MALAYSIA. SELANGOR, Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya, Botanical Garden, 10–12.vi.1996, S.L. Heydon [2♀, 3Ƌ, UCDC, UCRC], 29.ii.1996, S.L. Heydon [2Ƌ, UCDC]. University of Malaya Field Research Centre (NNE of Gombak), 3°13’N 101°38’E, 4-5.iii.1996, S.L. Heydon [7Ƌ, UCDC]. PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Awar Village, 3.vi.1982, P. Grootaert [1Ƌ, CNC]. Laing, 16.vii.1982, P. Grootaert [1♀, CNC]. PHILIPPINES. Luzon Island, QUEZON, Mount Benahaw de Lucban, 3.78 km WSW of Lucban, 14°05.859’N 121°31.071’E, 747 m, 14–22.v.2011, H. Wood, M. Yngente, N. Chousou Polydouri, C. Griswold, V. Knutson [1♀, CAS]. SINGAPORE. Mandai Road, 30.xi.1978, J. T. Huber [1♀, CNC]. THAILAND. CHANTHABURI, Khao Kitchakut National Park headquarters, 12°50.298’N 102°7.260’E, 50 m, 30.vi–3.vii.2008, B. V. Brown [1♀, UCRC]. CHIANG MAI, Toong Huay Kho, Thambon Doripoa, Amphur Mae Wang, 18.69°N 98.81°E, 240 m, 1–10.iv.1997, S. Sonthichai (rice field at forest edge) [1♀, UCDC].
Redescription. FEMALE (based on specimens from Australia (Queensland), India (Karnataka), Indonesia, Malaysia (Selangor), and Thailand). Body length 1100–1300 µm (critical point dried, point-mounted specimens). Head dark brown (Figs 1, 7), mesosoma and petiole light brown, gaster brown to dark brown; scape, pedicel, and most of F1 light brown, remainder of flagellum brown; legs yellow to light brown. Antenna (Fig. 3) with scape 2.8–3.2× as long as wide including radicle, smooth, with a few normal setae; pedicel 2.2–2.5× as long as wide and about 2.0× as long as F1; F1 the shortest and F2 the longest funiculars, F3 longer than following funiculars, length to width ratios of funiculars: F1—3.0, F2—7.8; F3—4.9; F4—2.5; F5—1.9; F6—1.8, F6 with 1 mps; clava 2.7–3.0 × as long as wide, usually with 7, but occasionally with 8 mps. Pronotum inconspicuously divided mediolongitudinally (sometimes apparently only partially); mesoscutum a little longer than scutellum, with sculpture faint, transversely striate anteriorly and mesh-like posteriorly; scutellum smooth, with campaniform sensilla about in the middle or a little closer to anterior margin, and each about the same distance from lateral margin of scutellum as from each other, frenum short, separated from anterior scutellum by a row of small, inconspicuous frenal foveae; propodeum with an elevated median area at posterior margin (best observed in lateral view in dry-mounted specimens, Fig. 2) and a median carina extending from this anteriorly for about half length (Fig. 4). Fore wing (Figs 6, 8) 4.9–5.5× as long as wide; marginal vein elongate, with 2 dorsal macrochaetae; disc hyaline, bare behind venation and densely setose a little beyond apex of venation; longest marginal seta about 0.8× greatest width of wing. Hind wing (Fig. 6) 31–38× as long as wide, with disc hyaline; longest marginal seta 5.1–6.2× greatest width of wing. Petiole (Fig. 4) notably widened basally. Ovipositor (Fig. 5) about or a little less than 2× length of gaster, markedly exserted beyond gastral apex, by about half total ovipositor length in specimens from Australia and Malaysia and a little less in specimens from India, and 2.2–2.4× length of metatibia.
MALE (based on the holotype (Fig. 10) and specimens from Selangor, Malaysia). Head (Fig. 10) and mandibles notably larger than in female. Antenna (Fig. 12) with scape 1.6–1.8× as long as wide, its inner surface with numerous modified setae creating pin cushion-like appearance (Fig. 13) [according to Triapitsyn & Aquino (2010), these setae probably have a sensory role when a male chews an exit hole from the inside of host egg]; pedicel (Fig. 13) smooth, about 2.5× as long as wide; F1 the shortest flagellomere (about 0.85× length of pedicel and about 0.45× length of F2), without mps, brown or at most just slightly lighter but usually concolorous with other flagellomeres; F2 the longest flagellomere, with several mps, mainly in distal half; F3 longer than F4, both with several mps, mainly in distal half; F5–F11 more or less subequal in length though F5, F6, and F11 a little longer than F7, F8, F9, or F10, and each with several more evenly distributed mps than on F2–F4. Pronotum enlarged (Fig. 14), with median length, excluding collar, about 0.4× its total [lateral] length, entire or at most divided mediolongitudinally only anteriorly, with 5 or 6 pairs of blunt, rather strong setae. Fore wing (Figs 11, 16) 5.5–5.6× as long as wide; disc slightly infumate to almost hyaline; longest marginal seta 0.9–1.0× greatest width of wing. Hind wing (Fig. 16) 34–36× as long as wide, with disc almost hyaline or just slightly infumate; longest marginal seta 5.0–5.7× greatest width of wing. Genitalia (Fig. 15) about 220 µm long; digitus with very small, inconspicuous denticles apically.
Measurements (µm) of P. mendeli holotype. Body: 1230; mesosoma: 480; petiole: 129; gaster: 437. Scape (including radicle): 106; pedicel: 90; F1: 64; F2: 145; F3: 130; F4: 115; F5: 94; F6: 91; F7: 85; F8: 85; F9: 83; F10: 85; F11: 94. Fore wing: 1193:212; longest marginal seta: 191. Hind wing: 923:27; longest marginal seta: 136.
Diagnosis. Polynema (Dorypolynema) mendeli, particularly females of the species, is most similar to P. (Dorypolynema) mboroense. Females differ mainly by body length, excluding the exserted part of the ovipositor. Critical-point dried females of P. (Dorypolynema) mendeli are at least 1100 µm whereas P. (Dorypolynema) mboroense females are at most 1025 µm in length. Males of P. (Dorypolynema) mendeli have a notably larger head than females and a larger pronotum (Fig. 14), its median length, excluding the collar, being about 0.4× its total length, the pronotum is entire or at most partially mediolongitudinally divided and has 5 or 6 pairs of blunt setae. The head of P. (Dorypolynema) mboroense males is about the same size as in females, the pronotum is not particularly enlarged (Fig. 25), its median length, excluding the collar, being about 0.25× its total [lateral] length, the latter is completely divided mediolongitudinally and has 3 pairs of pointed setae. The morphological differences between both sexes of P. (Dorypolynema) mendeli and the Neotropical P. (Dorypolynema) magniceps Ashmead [as its synonym P. (Dorypolynema) gaucho Triapitsyn & Aquino (Aquino et al. 2016)] were given by Triapitsyn & Aquino (2010).
Distribution. Australasia: Australia (Queensland), and Papua New Guinea *. Oriental region: India, Indonesia *, Malaysia [including Sarawak, Borneo Island (Sveum 1982)], Philippines *, Singapore *, Taiwan (Triapitsyn 2018a), and Thailand *.
Extralimital host. The type series of Polynema oophaga was reared from eggs of an unidentified Tettigoniidae (Orthoptera) on rice in a paddy field (Subba Rao 1970), which might have been the meadow grasshopper, Conocephalus longipennis (de Haan), a common katydid in tropical Asia rice fields. It is likely that the enlarged mandibles of males of species of P. (Dorypolynema), and also the head of P. (Dorypolynema) mendeli males, compared to conspecific females, represent sexual dimorphism associated with their habit as parasitoids of katydid eggs with hard chorions. The males chew exit holes for themselves and also for their sisters, assuming that they are gregarious and that other species of this subgenus have similar host associations as P. (Dorypolynema) mendeli (Triapitsyn & Aquino 2010). Some other known mymarid and trichogrammatid (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) egg parasitoids of Tettigoniidae have similar sexually dimorphic features (Triapitsyn & Aquino 2010; Ortis et al. 2020).
Remarks. Sveum (1982) briefly redescribed both sexes of Polynema (Dorypolynema) mendeli and Hayat & Anis (1999) provided taxonomic notes on this species and illustrated both sexes. Based on specimens from India, Rehmat & Anis (2016) also redescribed and illustrated both sexes of P. mendeli.
description: Published as part of Triapitsyn, Serguei V., 2021, Taxonomic review of Polynema (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in Australia and New Zealand, with descriptions of eight new species, pp. 151-200 in Zootaxa 4915 (2) on pages 154-158, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4915.2.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4454213