Cremnomymar Ogloblin 1952
Creators: name: Triapitsyn, Serguei V.
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2024
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Mymaridae
Cremnomymar

description: Cremnomymar Ogloblin, 1952
(Figs 1–54)
Cremnomymar Ogloblin 1952: 120, 136 (key). Type species: Cremnomymar fernandezi Ogloblin, by original designation. Subsequent references: Annecke & Doutt 1961: 6 (key), 31 (discussion that it is not a synonym of Palaeoneura Waterhouse, comments); De Santis 1979: 374 (catalog); Fidalgo 1982: 98 (comparison with Parapolynema); Yoshimoto 1990: 14, 20 (key), 66 (diagnosis, list of species); Huber 2013: 57–58 (generic synonymies, comments), 59–62, 64–70 (illustrations, discussion).
Scolopsopteron Ogloblin 1952: 127–128, 136 (key). Type species: Scolopsopteron kuscheli Ogloblin, by original designation. Synonymized under Cremnomymar by Huber 2013: 57. Subsequent references: Annecke & Doutt 1961: 6 (key), 30 (comments); De Santis 1979: 373 (catalog); Yoshimoto 1990: 20 (key), 65 (diagnosis, list of species).
Nesopolynema Ogloblin 1952: 132, 136 (key). Type species: Nesopolynema caudatum Ogloblin, by original designation. Synonymized under Cremnomymar by Huber 2013: 57. Subsequent references: Annecke & Doutt 1961: 6 (key), 30 (comments); De Santis 1979: 374 (catalog); Yoshimoto 1990: 13 (key), 65–66 (diagnosis, list of species).
Oncomymar Ogloblin 1957: 414. Type species: Oncomymar dipteron Ogloblin, by original designation. Synonymized under Cremnomymar by Huber 2013: 57. Subsequent references: Annecke & Doutt 1961: 6 (key), 30 (comments); De Santis 1979: 373 (catalog); Yoshimoto 1990: 20 (key [misspelled as “ Oncomyar ”]), 64–65 (diagnosis, list of species, discussion).
Parapolynema Fidalgo 1982: 97–98. Type species: Parapolynema sagittifer Fidalgo, by original designation. Syn. n. Subsequent references: De Santis 1989: 73 (catalog); Yoshimoto 1990: 14, 20 (key), 67 (diagnosis, list of species); Fidalgo 1991: 152 (diagnosis, brief discussion); Luft Albarracin et al. 2009: 11 (list), 14 (key); Huber 2013: 65 (brief discussion); Luft Albarracin et al. 2014: 132 (key).
Redescription. FEMALE. Body length 660–1260 µm (dry- and slide-mounted specimens). Body and appendages light to dark brown. Face without a pit next to each torulus (Figs 7, 17, 27, 39). Mandible 3–dentate (Huber 2013, p. 66, fig. 25). Antenna (Figs 2, 16, 26, 40, 42) with scape smooth on both surfaces; funicle 6–segmented, with all segments longer than wide and F6 either without mps or with 1 mps in some species; clava entire, with 7 mps. Mesosoma (Figs 3, 19, 28) with propleura abutting each other anteriorly along midline, the prosternum thus closed anteriorly (Fig. 18); pronotum entire; mesoscutum with notauli absent, incomplete, or complete; axilla poorly differentiated; scutellum with campaniform sensilla about midway between anterior and posterior margins and far apart from each other; frenum short, usually separated from scutellum by a row of frenal foveae; propodeum in middle usually smooth, with or without an incomplete or complete median carina, or with 2 submedian carinae diverging anteriorly (sometimes Y-shaped) and with lateral carinae raised distally above propodeum surface; each propodeal seta raised on a more or less distinct tubercle (Huber 2013, p. 68, fig. 32). Wings mostly of peculiar shape, distinctly oval (Figs 31, 41, 45). Fore wing of macropterous specimens (Figs 6, 21, 41) with marginal + stigmal vein with 2 short dorsal macrochaetae and with a fine process of various length at apex of stigmal vein (Figs 5, 29); fore wing disc almost flat to slightly convex, not uniformly setose, with or without two dark cross-bands beyond venation and with or without modified setae; fringe setae on anterior margin often greatly thickened and of different length (Fig. 31). Hind wing (Figs 9, 22) rather short and narrow, without modified setae on disk and fringe. Metasoma (Figs 4, 20, 30) with petiole attached to gastral tergum, longer than wide, usually cylindrical but widened anteriorly in some species; ovipositor not projecting or slightly to notably protruding beyond gastral apex.
MALE. Body length 610–1330 µm (dry- and slide-mounted specimens). Similar to female except for typical sexually dimorphic features of antenna and genitalia and the following: antenna (Figs 10, 46, 52) filiform, with flagellum 11-segmented; all flagellar segments much longer than wide. Genitalia (Figs 13, 35, 50) with digiti straight and without hooks.
BOTH SEXES. Brachypterous individuals occur on Juan Fernández Islands, where some species lack modified setae on the fore wing disk and fringe.
Remarks. The rationale for the proposed synonymy of Parapolynema under Cremnomymar is as follows. In the original diagnosis, Fidalgo (1982) separated Parapolynema from Cremnomymar based on the usual presence of a median carina on the propodeum (sometimes absent) and a short metapleural sulcus, features that are characteristic of the tribe Polynematini Ogloblin, as defined and keyed by Ogloblin (1952). At the same time, Fidalgo (1982) recognized the similarity of Parapolynema with members of the tribe Cremnomymarini Ogloblin (Ogloblin 1952) through having a distinct apical process of the fore wing venation and a characteristic, well-developed and raised lateral carinae on the propodeum. However, Fidalgo (1982) did not place Parapolynema in either of these two tribes but rather in the tribe Mymarini Haliday as defined and keyed by Ogloblin (1952) and later keyed (but otherwise poorly defined) in Annecke & Doutt (1961). Huber (2013) noted that Parapolynema and Cremnomymar share the two most distinctive and unique (among member genera of the Polynema group) features, the above-mentioned fore wing shape and structure, and each propodeal seta set on a distinct protuberance, a bump or tooth (Huber 2013, p. 68, fig. 32). He also justifiably considered differences, albeit being quite striking, in the shape of the propodeal submedian carinae (when present) in the endemic Cremnomymar species from the Juan Fernández Islands to be at most of species-level significance and therefore synonymized Nesopolynema, Oncomymar, and Scolopsopteron under Cremnomymar. Among those former genera, Oncomymar lacks median or submedian carinae (Ogloblin 1957) like some Parapolynema species, but has lateral carinae and raised propodeal setae characteristic of Cremnomymar. Overall, Parapolynema fits well in the broadened diagnosis of Cremnomymar as defined by Huber (2013), and hence the new synonymy.
The characteristic fore wing shape with a fine but distinct apical projection of the venation (Figs 5, 29) makes Cremnomymar quite easy to distinguish, not only among the Neotropical Polynema -group genera but also among all world fairyfly genera. Huber (2013) alluded to a possible Gondwanan origin and similarity to the Australasian genus Richteria Girault, whose fore wing is also slightly convex but has a different venation lacking an apical process. Ogloblin (1952) placed Cremnomymar and its three current synonyms from Juan Fernández Islands in Cremnomymarini, and Fidalgo (1982, 1991) compared Parapolynema with both Cremnomymar and the cosmopolitan Polynema Haliday. However, based on current data from morphology, the phylogenetic placement of Cremnomymar within the informal Polynema group of genera, to which it definitely belongs, is still unclear. Thorough further studies involving molecular data and worldwide sampling of as many genera as possible within this group are needed because morphological analysis alone has not been enough to resolve phylogenetic relationships. Cremnomymar species display a mixture of variable morphological features which are characteristic of many genera in the Polynema group but also, uniquely, an apparently relict apical process of venation.
One of the most difficult problems in recognizing Cremnomymar, as defined by Huber (2013) and redescribed above, is the variety, when present, and shape of median or submedian carinae on the propodeum. In other genera within the Polynema group with submedian carinae, their shape is used as one of the main diagnostic features of generic value, e.g., in Acmopolynema Ogloblin, Himopolynema Taguchi, Platyfrons Yoshimoto, and Polynemula Ogloblin. Ogloblin (1952, 1957) used the shape of propodeal carinae as the main diagnostic feature of his four genera belonging to Cremnomymarini. However, Huber (2013) justifiably argued that in Cremnomymar, carinae on the propodeum can be quite variable, more so than in some other Polynema -group genera. As indicated above, the propodeum can be either without a median carina, with an incomplete or complete median carina, or with two submedian carinae diverging anteriorly so as to sometimes be Y-shaped. It is already known that presence or absence of a complete or incomplete median propodeal carina is generally not a good generic-type character because it varies among species within several genera of Mymaridae, most notably in Polynema (Triapitsyn & Fidalgo 2006). In some Cremnomymar species this feature varies even within the same species, as females of C. fidalgoi n. sp. have a complete or almost complete median carina on the propodeum whereas conspecific males lack it, and vice versa in C. sagittifer. In light of these facts, validity of other genera within the Polynema group, e.g., Neotropical Polynemula (Triapitsyn & Aquino 2008), may need to be re-assessed.
Distribution. Neotropical region: Argentina (Fidalgo 1982 [as Parapolynema]), Bolivia (Huber 2013 [as Parapolynema]), Brazil [new record], and Chile (including Juan Fernández Islands). Cremnomymar is for the first time recorded here from mainland Chile although Luft Albarracin et al. (2009) mentioned its occurrence (as Parapolynema) in the country.
Hosts. Unknown.
Key to Cremnomymar species in South America, excluding the Juan Fernández Islands. Females
1 Scutellum smooth (Fig. 19)............................................................ C. nahuelbutae sp. n.
– Scutellum with reticulate sculpture (Figs 3, 28, 38)........................................................... 2
2(1) Notauli more or less distinct and complete; fore wing with subapical dark, transverse band narrow (Fig. 41); body color light brown or brown (Figs 37, 38)................................................ C. tucumanum (Fidalgo), comb. n.
– Notauli either absent or, if present, incomplete and distinct only anteriorly; fore wing with subapical, dark, transverse band wide (Figs 6, 31); body color dark brown (Figs 8, 24, 25).......................................................... 3
3(2) Mesoscutum about as long as scutellum and with notauli distinct anteriorly (Fig. 3); propodeum with a distinct, complete or almost complete median carina (Fig. 3); fore wing subapically with normal fringe setae on anterior margin and proximal dark, transverse band narrow (Fig. 6); procoxa and petiole darker brown................................. C. fidalgoi sp. n.
– Mesoscutum shorter than scutellum and without distinct notauli anteriorly (Fig. 28); propodeum without a median carina (Fig. 28); fore wing subapically with mostly thickened fringe setae on anterior margin and proximal dark, transverse band wide (Fig. 31); procoxa and petiole lighter brown........................................... C. sagittifer (Fidalgo), comb. n.
description: Published as part of Triapitsyn, Serguei V., 2024, Review of Cremnomymar species (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in mainland South America, with a new generic synonymy, pp. 25-46 in Zootaxa 5463 (1) on pages 26-28, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5463.1.2, http://zenodo.org/record/11610052