Pristiphora ribisi Togashi 1990
Creators: name: Hara, Hideho
name: Iwasaki, Akeo
name: Shinohara, Akihiko
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2021
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Tenthredinidae
Pristiphora
Pristiphora ribisi

description: Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, 1990
Japanese name: Suguri-habachi
(Figs 1–7)
Nematus sp., “Suguri-habachi (in Japanese)”: Munakata, 1911: 15 [part]; Takahashi, 1930: 1017 [part].
Doistiphoa grossulariae Anon., 1912: 77 (as “ Doistiphoa grossulariae Mats., Suguri-habachi (in Japanese)”). Misspelling for Pristiphora grossulariae. Syn. nov. Preoccupied in Pristiphora by Pristiphora grossulariae Walsh, 1866 [= Pristiphora appendiculata (Hartig, 1837)].
Doistiphora grossularia: Shiraki, 1952: V: 93, VI: 19 (as “ Doistiphora grossularia Matsumura, Suguri-habachi”). Misspelling for Pristiphora grossulariae.
Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, 1990: 827; Haris, 2006b: 221; Taeger et al., 2010: 468; Prous et al., 2016: 11, 21, 23; Hara, 2019: 86; Hara, 2020: 83, 342.
Pristiphora (Pristiphora) anivskiensis Haris, 2006a: 194; Sundukov & Lelej, 2009: 5; Prous et al., 2017: 91 (as a synonym of Pristiphora appendiculata). Syn. nov.
Pristiphora nigrocoreana Haris & Zsolnai, 2006 [sic]: Haris, 2006b: 207, 222. Not available, since the name does not fulfill the requirements of the ICZN (1999).
Pristiphora (Pristiphora) nigrocoreana Haris & Zsolnai, 2007: 141; Lee et al., 2019: 45. Syn. nov.
Pristiphora appendiculata: Haris, 2006b: 220 [part (record from Japan)]; Sundukov, 2017: 70 [part (record from Japan)]; Hara, 2019: 84. Not Hartig (1837).
Pristiphora (Pristiphora) appendiculata: Sundukov & Lelej, 2009: 5 [part (record from Japan)]; Sundukov & Lelej, 2012: 90 [part (record from Japan)]. Not Hartig (1837).
Pristiphora sp., “Suguri-habachi (in Japanese)”: Hara, 2019: 87 [part].
Female (Figs 1 D–K, 2A). Length 5.0–6.0 mm (5.0 mm in lectotype of Pristiphora grossulariae). Black. Pale areas variable. In specimens rich with pale areas (Fig. 1D, E, H–J), vertex narrowly brownish near eye, clypeus yellow or brown laterally, malar space posteriorly yellow or brown, labrum yellow, mandible basally yellow and apically reddish brown, pronotum narrowly yellow on dorsolateral corner, tegula yellow, postspiracular sclerite gray or brown, epicnemium slightly pale, legs white to yellow except for narrow bases of coxae, and tenth tergum rarely brown. In specimens poor with pale areas (Fig. 1F, G), clypeus and malar space without pale areas, labrum only ventrally yellow or brown, mandible black basally, yellow on middle and reddish brown apically, pronotum without pale areas, tegula yellow only apically, postspiracular sclerite slightly pale, epicnemium not pale, and legs white to yellow on narrow apices of coxae, trochanters and trochantelli, apices of femora, tibiae except for narrow apex of hind tibia slightly darkened and tarsi except for apices slightly darkened. Intermediate color condition as in Fig. 1K.
Head in dorsal view not dilated behind eye, with length behind eye 0.4–0.5 × eye length and length behind lateral ocellus 1.3–1.9 × length of lateral ocellus (Fig. 3A, E, I). OOL:POL:OCL = 0.6–1.0:1.0:0.5–0.7. Frontal area slightly raised, almost flat, not ridged laterally and anteriorly, without anterior median groove (Fig. 3B, F, J). Frontal pit nearly circular. Narrow ridge surrounding torulus only distinct along ventrolateral edge of torulus. Inner margins of eyes parallel or very slightly converging below (Fig. 3C, G, K). Distance between eyes at toruli 1.4–1.5 × eye height. Clypeus truncate or widely concave on anterior margin, with depth of concavity 0–0.5 × median height of clypeus; maximum height 0.5–0.6 × torulus height. Malar space 0.9–1.4 × as wide as median ocellus. Height of eye in lateral view about 4 times as long as distance from eye to dorsal-most point of head (Fig. 3D, H, L). Antenna 2.4–2.6 × as long as head width (Fig. 1F); first flagellomere length 0.9–1.1 × eye height, 1.1–1.3 × second flagellomere length.
Notaulus sharp. Mesoscutellar appendage length 1.1–1.8 × short diameter of cenchrus (Fig. 4A, B, E). Distance between cenchri 1.1–1.5 × long diameter of cenchrus. Epicnemium with ventral edge recognized as dark line, not or slightly grooved; maximum width about 0.9–1.0 × mesothoracic spiracle height. Mesepisternum without groove along anterior margin but with dark line along anterior margin that is continuous with ventral edge line of epicnemium. Anepimeron very slightly lower than katepimeron. Katepimeron glabrous. Anterior fore tibial spur with transparent lamella (= velum). Posterior metatibial spur 1.1–1.5 × as long as apical height of metatibia. Claws simple, without inner tooth (Fig. 4C, D, F). Fore wing with cell Sc 0.3–0.6 × as wide as vein C including its posterior laminated part at middle point of base of vein Rs+M.
Hypopygium in ventral view with posterior margin not or slightly concave beside medial projection. Cercus about 3–4 × as long as wide, posteriorly not or slightly extending beyond ovipositor sheath (Fig. 5 A–F). Ovipositor sheath in dorsal view each about 2–3 × as wide as cercus, laterally roundly convex, and apically deeply concave, with median lobe shorter than lateral lobe (Fig. 5A, C, E), in lateral view apically truncate or widely rounded (Fig. 5B, D, F), and in posterior view Fig. 5G.
Lance annulated except for basal fourth (Fig. 6A); annuli almost straight and erect. Lancet with 16–21 serrulae (Fig. 6A, E, G); radix short; tractium (tra) well differentiated, narrowly fused with tangium (tan) ventrally; annuli sinuate; ctenidia absent on first or first and second and several apical annuli; each ctenidium consisting of almost one row of setae (Fig. 6B) or two or three irregular rows of dense setae (Fig. 6D, F, H); cypselae (cyp; emarginations between serrulae) narrow and deep.
Punctures inconspicuous or minute. Head and thorax smooth. Frons and vertex sparsely covered with indistinct granules (Fig. 3B, F, J). Mesoscutum with posterolateral sunken part smooth, sometimes widely or mostly rough. Punctures on mesoscutellum and mesoscutellar appendage inconspicuous (Fig. 4A, B, E). Metapostnotum completely smooth, sometimes very slightly rugulose on narrow medial part. Punctures on mesepisternum inconspicuous. Abdominal terga slightly or distinctly microsculptured reticulately.
Male (hitherto undescribed) (Figs 1L, M, 2B). Length 4.5–5.0 mm. Differing from female as follows, except for usual sexual differences. Coloration as in dark female in Fig. 1F, G; hind tarsus entirely darkened. Harpe white.
Distance between cenchri 0.8–1.3 × long diameter of cenchrus. Procidentia distinctly convex, setose except for posterior third, gradually widened and somewhat protruding posteriorly in dorsal view (Fig. 5H). Subgenital plate apically narrowly truncate or rounded in ventral view. Genitalia Fig. 7 A–D in ventral view with parapenis apically curved laterally, extending posteriorly near to level of apex of basiparamere and harpe longer than wide, apically rounded; penis valve in lateral view with valvispina (= ventroapical spine) slightly curved, apically extending to near apex of pseudoceps, with pointed apex; pseudoceps in lateral view wide, apically rounded, dorsally with small notch near apex.
Immature stages. Egg about 1.2 mm long, white (Fig. 2C).
Early and middle instar larva (Fig. 2D, E): head and legs black; trunk light green.
Final instar larva (Fig. 2 F–H): length 12–14 mm; head black and legs basally widely black and apically brownish (Fig. 2H), or head yellowish green usually with median black band dorsally, vertical black band laterally and frons brownish or black and legs pale green, narrowly black basally, brownish apically (Fig. 2F, G); trunk light green, usually yellowish on prothoracic and tenth abdominal segments (prothorax blackish brown according to Munakata 1911); tenth abdominal tergum sometimes posteromedially brownish; frons with 17–22 setae; clypeus with two setae on each side; antenna conical, with four antennomeres, apical three complete and apical two not flat; labrum with two pairs of setae; mandible with one seta; stipes of maxilla without setae; trunk with short setae; spiracles winged; abdomen with seven pairs of prolegs on each of second to seventh and tenth segments; first and ninth abdominal segments each with five annulets, with second and third having row of setae; second to eighth abdominal segments each with six annulets, with second and fourth having row of setae; in middle abdominal segments, second annulet with five or sixth setae, fourth annulet with three to five setae and one wart, surpedal lobe with four or five setae and one wart, subspiracular lobe with five to seven setae, first (anterior) postspiracular lobe with two setae and one wart, second (posterior) postspiracular lobe three to four setae; tenth abdominal segment without pseudocerci or protuberances; subanal lobe with about 70–80 setae.
Cocoon (Fig. 2 I–L) 6.0– 6.5 mm long, dark brown, single walled, tightly spun; surface thread moderately narrow.
Type material examined. Lectotype of Pristiphora grossulariae Anon., 1912 (here designated) (Fig. 1 B–E): ♀, “Suguri-habachi (in Japanese) 42.10.5”, “ Japan Matsumura” (on upper side) / “ Awomori 1go (in Japanese; = Aomori No. 1), 5 / X 1909 ” (on under side), “ Pristiphora grossularia ”. Paralectotype: 1♀, same labels as the lectotype. They are deposited in the Hokkaido University Museum, Sapporo. The lectotype and the paralectotype were originally mounted on the same cardboard (Fig. 1A, arrowed specimens). The lectotype was removed from the cardboard and directly pinned in the present study (Fig. 1D, E).
Anonymous (1912) wrote that what Munakata (1911) described as “Suguri-habachi” is a new species, according to Matsumura’s identification. Hence, the type specimens of Pristiphora grossulariae Anon., 1912 are Munakata’s (1911) specimens of “Suguri-habachi” examined by Matsumura. In Matsumura’s collection in the Hokkaido University Museum, there are seven specimens under the name card “Suguri-habachi (in Japanese) Pristiphora grossularia Mats. ” (Fig. 1A). Four of them were collected in Aomori where Munakata (1911) studied Suguri-habachi and they are labelled “Matsumura”. Two are on the same card board (Fig. 1A). They were collected in 1909 and have a label “ Pristiphora grossularia ” (Fig. 1B) probably written by Matsumura. Other two were collected in 1911 and do not have species-name labels. We consider the former two the type specimens of Pristiphora grossulariae Anon., 1912. The latter two do not belong to the type series, because Munakata’s (1911) paper was published on January 15, 1911. The other three are labelled “ Iwate, Ogasawara”, not Aomori, Munakata or Matsumura, and therefore those are not the type specimens.
Judging from the figures in Munakata (1911), Munakata’s “ Nematus sp., Suguri-habachi” contained two species, Cladius (fig. 1) and Pristiphora or one of its similar genera (figs 2, 7). The type specimens of Pristiphora grossulariae agree with part of the description relating to the latter species.
Holotype of Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, 1990 (Fig. 1 H–J): ♀, “Yanai-City, Yamaguchi, 29. IV. 1989 ” “Yabusanzashi (= Ribes fasciculatum Siebold et Zucc.)” “ Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, sp. nov., det. Togashi, 1990 ” “ HOLOTYPE ” “NSMT-I-Hym No. 23013” “NEM-22”. The ovipositor is missing. Paratype of P. ribisi: 1♀, “Yanai-City, Yamaguchi, 29. IV. 1989 ” “ Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, sp. nov., det. Togashi, 1990 ” “NSMT-I-Hym No. 23660”.
Holotype of Pristiphora (Pristiphora) nigrocoreana Haris & Zsolnai, 2007 (Fig. 1F, G): ♀, “24, VII, 1935 Hakugan Takeuchi” “ Holotypus Pristiphora nigrocoreana sp. n. Haris 2005”. Paratype of P. (P.) nigrocoreana: 1♀, “24, VII, 1935 Hakugan Takeuchi” “ Paratypus Pristiphora nigrocoreana sp. n. det. Haris 2005”.
Other material examined. JAPAN, HOKKAIDO: 1♀, Obihiro, Inada, 16. VI. 1974, K. Tagawa; 1♀, Mt. Satsunai-dake, 27. VII. 1967, H. Shima; 3♀ 4³, Bibai, Koshunai, 43°17'N 141°51'E, coll. larvae on Ribes latifolium 24. V. 2008, em. 1. VI. 2008, H. Hara; 1♀, same locality and collector but, coll. larva on Ribes triste 27. V. 2008, em. 15. VI. 2008; 1♀, same data but, em. 25. VIII. 2008; 3♀, same data but, em. 19. III. 2009; 8♀ 4³, same locality and collector but, on Ribes triste, 2. VI. 2008; 1³, Sapporo, Hitsujigaoka, 43°00'N 141°24'E, Malaise trap, 18–25. VI. 2003, K. Konishi; 1♀, Kitahiroshima, 25. VI. 1932, H. Sugiura; 2♀, Eniwa, on Ribes sp. (hirtellum or uva-crispa), 9. VI. 2019, A. Iwasaki; 1♀, same data but, 11. VI. 2019; 3♀, same locality and collector but, coll. larva on Ribes sp. (hirtellum or uva-crispa) 9. VI. 2019, em. 18–19. VI. 2019; 2♀, same data but, coll. larvae 29. VI. 2019, em. early July 2019; 3♀, same data but, coll. larvae 3. VII. 2019, em. 14–15. VII. 2019. 16 final instar larvae, same data but, coll. 3. VII. 2019.—HONSHU: 1♀, “Japan Matsumura” (on upper side) / “Awomori (in Japanese) 1911” (on under side), “Suguri Gusuberi (in Japanese; = gooseberry)”, deposited in Hokkaido University Museum; 1♀, “Japan Matsumura” (on upper side) / “Awomori (in Japanese) 1911” (on under side), deposited in Hokkaido University Museum; 1♀, “ Iwate Ogasawara” (on upper side) / “45.6.14” (= 14. VI. 1912) (on under side), deposited in Hokkaido University Museum; 1♀, Nagano Pref., Chino, Izumino, 3. VI. 1950, K. Sato; 1♀, Osaka Pref., Minoo, 15. V. 1930, C. Teranishi; 6♀, Hyogo Pref., Sayo, coll. larvae on Ribes fasciculatum 5. V. 2011, em. 15. V. 2011, T. Naito.—Locality unknown: 3♀, “ 1933.VII.5 (1061) Suguri (= Ribes sp. in Japanese)”.
Distribution. Japan: Hokkaido (Shiraki 1952 as Doistiphora grossularia; present study), Honshu (Munakata 1911, as Nematus sp.; Togashi 1990). Russia: Sakhalin (Haris 2006a, as Pristiphora (Pristiphora) anivskiensis). Korea (Haris & Zsolnai 2007, as Pristiphora nigrocoreana). China: Sichuan (Prous et al. 2016; Taeger et al. 2018).
Citing Munakata (1911) and Takahashi (1930), Shiraki (1952) wrote that the distribution was Hokkaido and Honshu. However, the former two authors made no mention of the distribution outside Honshu. The basis of Shiraki’s record from Hokkaido is unknown.
Records of Pristiphora appendiculata from Japan. The first record of Pristiphora appendiculata (Hartig, 1837) from Japan was made by Shiraki (1952) who listed “ Diphadnus pallipes Lepeletier ” in his “Catalogue of Injurious Insects in Japan” and wrote that the distribution was Hokkaido and Honshu. Nematus (Diphadnus) Hartig, 1837 is a synonym of Pristiphora (e.g. Prous et al. 2014), and therefore the name is a different name combination for Pristiphora pallipes Lepeletier, 1823 (= P. appendiculata) (cf. Lacourt 2000; Prous et al. 2017), although Diphadnus pallipes had not been used before Shiraki (1952) and have not been used or cited thereafter (cf. Taeger et al. 2010, 2018) except for Hara (2019). Shiraki (1952) listed two Ribes sawflies, “ Diphadnus pallipes Lepeletier, (Nematus sp.), J.N.: Suguri-habachi” and “ Doistiphora grossularia Matsumura, J.N.: Suguri-habachi”. We consider that those two correspond to two Ribes sawflies mentioned by Takahashi (1930) under the name of “ Nematus sp., Suguri-habachi”. One was “ Nematus sp., Suguri-habachi” of Munakata (1911) (= P. ribisi) and the other was the undetermined larva feeding on Ribes (p. 1019). It appears that Shiraki (1952) somehow identified the latter larva with “ Diphadnus pallipes ”, because he listed only Takahashi (1930) as the reference for “ Diphadnus pallipes ”. However, the undetermined larva differs from that of P. appendiculata. Takahashi (1930) wrote that the undetermined larva was green with a pair of black bands on the vertex and small black spots on each segment of the trunk, while the larva of P. appendiculata is very similar to that of P. ribisi (Fig. 2 F–H) and does not have distinct black spots on the trunk (for the larva of P. appendiculata, see Eiseman 2020, Green 2020, Taeger et al. 2018). Haris (2006b), Sundukov & Lelej (2009, 2012) and Hara (2019) included Japan in the distribution of P. appendiculata without any comment. This species is very similar to P. ribisi and their adults are distinguishable only by the female lancets (Prous et al. 2016; see also Remarks). We examined lancets of the Japanese females from all collection sites in our material and recognized that they all are P. ribisi. The distribution records of P. appendiculata from Japan need confirmation and here we exclude P. appendiculata from the fauna of Japan.
Host plants. Grossulariaceae: Ribes fasciculatum Siebold et Zucc. (Togashi 1990), R. latifolium Jancz. (new record),? R. sinanense F.Maek. (Munakata 1911, as “Suguri (in Japanese)”), R. triste Pall. (new record) and R. sp. (gooseberry, R. hirtellum Michx. or R. uva-crispa L.).
Munakata (1911) wrote that the sawfly only occurred on “Suguri (= R. sinanense)”. However, his figure of the leaf with the sawfly eggs (fig. 8) is not R. sinanense.
Life history. According to Munakata (1911) who made the observation in Aomori Prefecture, northernmost Honshu, this sawfly overwinters in a cocoon and has two generations a year; overwintering generation pupates in late April, and emerges and oviposits in middle May; the first generation becomes a cocoon in middle July, pupates in middle August, and emerges and oviposits in early September; the second generation becomes a cocoon in late October and overwinters. However, the life cycle is somewhat different in our observation. The sawfly probably has three or more generations a year with polymodal adult emergence (Table 1). Because the final instar larvae were found in late May and the host plants opened leaves in early May in our study sites (Bibai and Eniwa, Hokkaido), it is probable that the overwintering generation becomes an adult in early May, and the first generation emerges in early June. The period from an egg to an adult of the first generation was about three months in Munakata (1911), but it is estimated about one month (when the cocoon period is the shortest) in our observation.
Eggs are laid along leaf margins (Fig. 2C, D) (Munakata 1911). In our observation, larvae were solitary leaf feeders, although two or more larvae were often found on one leaf. Munakata (1911) reported that the cocoons were made on the host plants, especially branching points, or the adjacent wood fences. Iwasaki found a group of five empty cocoons on a stem of the host plant (Fig. 2I), one empty cocoon on a twig of the host plant (Fig. 2J), five empty cocoons on the ground near the host plant (Fig. 2K) and one empty cocoon on string tied to a plant support stick near the host plant (Fig. 2L). It is unknown whether the cocoons found on the ground had fallen from the plant or were made on the ground.
Infestation. Munakata (1911) wrote that the larvae severely defoliated Ribes and sometimes whole leaves of plants were lost except for the petioles by larval feeding. We observed severe defoliation on R. triste in a garden in Bibai from 2008 to the next few years and on gooseberry (R. hirtellum or R. uva-crispa) in a garden in Eniwa in recent years.
Remarks. Pristiphora ribisi will be distinguished from other Japanese congeners by the following characters: frons and vertex sparsely covered with indistinct granules; frontal area slightly raised, almost flat, without lateral and anterior ridges and anterior median groove; narrow ridge surrounding torulus only distinct along ventrolateral edge of torulus; mesepisternum smooth, without groove along anterior edge; mesopostnotum completely smooth; claws without inner tooth.
In the key to the Palaearctic species of Pristiphora by Haris (2006b), this species goes to P. appendiculata or P. nigrocoreana Haris & Zsolnai, 2007 (= P. ribisi), but it does not go to P. ribisi Togashi, 1990, because he erroneously regarded P. ribisi as having claws with an inner tooth. According to Prous et al. (2016), P. ribisi is externally indistinguishable from the closely related P. appendiculata, but the lancet of P. ribisi has ctenidial setae, while that of P. appendiculata lacks ctenidial setae. In the key by Haris (2006b), the male of P. ribisi will go to the couplet 11 of the Table Q consisting of P. appendiculata, P. nigropuncticeps Haris, 2002 from Mongolia and P. anivskiensis Haris, 2006a from Sakhalin (= P. ribisi; see below). The penis valves of P. ribisi and P. nigropuncticeps are quite different (compare Fig. 7C, D with fig. 13 in Haris 2002 or fig. 128 in Haris 2006b). In the key to the North-Western Palaearctic species of Pristiphora by Prous et al. (2017), the male of P. ribisi goes to that of P. appendiculata. The males of these two species appear to be indistinguishable. Their penis valves are identical (compare Fig. 7C, D with fig. 262 in Prous et al. 2017). The final instar larvae of P. ribisi and P. appendiculata are very similar in general appearance (compare Fig. 2 F–H with larva photos of P. appendiculata on website, e.g. Eiseman 2020, Green 2020, Taeger et al. 2018). However, the fourth annulet of each of middle abdominal segments has three to five setae and one wart in P. ribisi but three setae and two warts in P. appendiculata according to Lorenz & Kraus (1957, as P. pallipes).
Prous et al. (2017) treated Pristiphora (Pristiphora) anivskiensis Haris, 2006a described from a single male from Sakhalin as a synonym of P. appendiculata. Pristiphora anivskiensis is also quite similar to P. ribisi (compare the photos of the holotype and its penis valve by Prous 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5100763, and Taeger et al. 2018, with Figs 1L, M and 7C, D). It would be reasonable to regard P. anivskiensis as a synonym of P. ribisi, not of P. appendiculata, judging from the distribution.
description: Published as part of Hara, Hideho, Iwasaki, Akeo & Shinohara, Akihiko, 2021, Taxonomic and biological notes on Pristiphora ribisi Togashi, 1990, (Hymenoptera Tenthredinidae) injurious to gooseberries and currants, pp. 393-404 in Zootaxa 4903 (3) on pages 394-403, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4903.3.5, http://zenodo.org/record/4428008