Amphibolips hidalgoensis Pujade-Villar & Melika. The 2011
Creators: name: Cuesta-Porta, Víctor
name: Equihua-Martínez, Armando
name: Estrada-Venegas, Edith G.
name: Cibrián-Tovar, David
name: Barrera-Ruíz, Uriel M.
name: Silva, Salvador Ordaz
name: Sánchez, Imelda Virginia López
name: Melika, George
name: Pujade-Villar, Juli
Publisher: name: Zenodo
Year: 2020
Subjects: Biodiversity
Taxonomy
Animalia
Arthropoda
Insecta
Hymenoptera
Cynipidae
Amphibolips
Amphibolips hidalgoensis

description: Amphibolips hidalgoensis Pujade-Villar & Melika
Amphibolips hidalgoensis Pujade-Villar & Melika, 2011. In Melika et al., 2011: 53–56.
Amphibolips malinche Nieves-Aldrey & Maldonado, 2012. In Nieves-Aldrey et al., 2012: 16–18. n. syn.
Type material examined of A. hidalgoensis: HOLOTYPE. ǒ (deposited in JP-V col, UB) with the following la-bels: MEXICO, “Acoxachitlan, Barrio de Tlacpac, Hidalgo state, Mexico (08.vi.2010) 8–15.vi.2010. Q. crassifolia, leg J.Pujade-Villar” (white label), “ Holotype Amphibolips hidalgoensis Pujade-Villar & Melika desig. JP-V 2011” (red label); Paratypes (deposited in JP-V col, UB): 16ǒ with the same data as the holotype; 5♀, MEXICO, San Mar-cos, Tlaxcala, (3.vi.2010) 3–10.vi.2010, Ex Q. crassipes, leg. J.Pujade-Villar; 4ǒ, MEXICO, Los Romeros, Hidalgo, (3.vi.2010), 3–10.vi.2010; Ex Q. candicans, leg J. Pujade-Villar; 4ǒ, Huasca, Hidalgo, (08.vi.2010) 8–15.vi.2010, Ex Q. candicans; Type material examined of A. malinche: HOLOTYPE. ♀ (deposited in MNCN), Cat. nº 2248. “ MEXICO, Tlaxcala, La Malinche, 19º 12’ 29 49” N, 98º 0’ 44 47” W, 2800 m; ex gall Q. mexicana, (16.v.2006) 30.v.2006, leg. E. Pascual”; Paratype: 1♀ with the same data as holotype.
Additional material. Material deposited in UB with the following labels: (MEX-273, MEX-274, MEX-275, MEX-279 & MEX-280) “Parque Nacional Zoquiapan y Anexas, 2138792.32N, 535424.37W, 3046 masl, Ixtapaluca, México (México), Ex Q. crassipes, (30.v.2012) vi–viii.2012: 18ŏ (UB), leg. E. Estrada & A. Equihua ”; “MEX-283, MEXICO, Los Romeros (2411 masl), Santiago Tulantepec de Lugo Guerrero, Hidalgo, (03.vi.2010) 17.vii.2010: 1ŏ (UB), Ex Q. mexicana, leg. E. Estrada & A. Equihua ”; “MEX-284, MEXICO, Canalejas, Estado de Mexico, Ex Q. crassipes, (iii.2002) iv.2002: 1ŏ (UB), leg. Efrain Tovar; “MEX-290, MEXICO, Fray Francisco (2210 masl), Acaxochitlán, Hidalgo, Ex Q. crassifolia, (10.vi.2010) 23.vi.2010: 7ŏ (UB), leg. E. Estrada & A. Equihua ”; “MEX-292, MEXICO, San Marcos (573138.99 E, 2137717.75 N; 2342 masl), Papalotla de Xicohténcatl, Tlaxcala, Ex Q. crassipes, (03.vi.2010) 04.vii.2010: 4ŏ (UB), leg. E. Estrada & A. Equihua ”; “MEX-293, MEXICO, Huasca, Hidalgo, Ex Q. calophylla, (08.vi.2010) 15–30.vi.2010: 2ŏ (UB), leg. J. Pujade-Villar ”; “MEX-296, MEXICO, Barrio Tlacpac, Acaxochitlán, Hidalgo, Ex Q. crassifolia, (08.vi.2010) 13.vii.2010: 11ŏ (UB), leg. E. Estrada & A. Equihua ”; “MEX-334, MEXICO, Tlaxco (19º40’5.54”N, 98º6’4.21”W; 2553masl), Tlaxcala, Ex Q. crassipes, (16.vi.2018) vii.2018: 5ŏ (UB), Pujade-Villar, Equihua & Estrada leg.”; “MEX-335, MEXICO, Aquixtla, Puebla, Ex Quercus sp., (13.vi.2018) vii.2018: 2ŏ (UB), Pujade-Villar, Equihua & Estrada leg.”; “MEX-353, MEXICO, Atecoxco (19º45’52”N, 97º57’52”W; 2382 masl), Aquixtla, Puebla, Ex Q. crassifolia, (16.vi.2018) 16–30.vii.2018: 8ŏ (UB), Pujade-Villar, Equihua & Estrada leg.”; (MEX-354 & MEX-355) “ MEXICO, Autopista Km 120, More-lia-Ciudad de Mexico, Ex Q. crassipes, (21.vi.2018) 16–30.vii.2018: 12ŏ (UB), Pujade-Villar, Equihua & Estrada leg.”; “MEX-390, MEXICO, Santa Fe, Cuajimalpa, Ciudad de Mexico, Ex Q. crassipes, (17.v.2016) vi.2016: 4ŏ (UB), leg. D. Cibrian ”; “MEX-449, MEXICO, Tlanchinol, Hidalgo, Ex Q. castanea, without data: 1ŏ (UB), leg. Equihua & Estrada-Venegas.”; “MEX-458, MEXICO, Carretera Mexico-Tuxpam (20º 2’ 41.85” N, 98º 28’ 7.86” W), Lajas Chicas, Hidalgo, Ex Q. crassipes, without data: 4ŏ (UB), leg. Equihua & Estrada-Venegas”; “MEX-462, MEXICO, Rancho Concepción, San Felipe del Progreso, Mexico state, Ex Q. crassipes & Q. acutifolia, (14. vii.2016) vii.2016: 5ŏ (UB), leg. N. Flores”.
Diagnosis. This species is characterized with a posteromedian depression of mesoscutum projected anteriorly, reaching scutellar foveae; bottom of depression with subparallel transversal carinae and smooth interspaces that extend to posterior margin of mesoscutellum. This species closely resembles A. tarasco but can be differentiated by the rugose lateral margin of compound eye in A. hidalgoensis (alutaceous and finely carinated dorsolaterally in A. tarasco); mesoscutum uniformly rugate in A. hidalgoensis (less densely rugate in posteromedian area in A. tarasco) (Figs 11D, 11J); scutellar foveae round with median carina extending to full length of foveae, posteromedian depression connecting with foveae (foveae subtriangular posterior and medially limited by rugose sculpture, median carina shorter than total length of foveae in A. tarasco); metascutellum less than 1.8x as broad as high (more than 2.0x in A. tarasco) (Figs 4 E–F). Galls of both species are subglobose bud galls, but A. hidalgoensis has galls with a thin, uniformly coloured outer shell and soft spongious internal tissue, while galls of A. tarasco have a mottled surface and outer shell and internal spongious tissue that is rather hard (Figs 16 H–I). The gall is similar to other species with a large globular shape without a mottled surface; it is not differentiable from A. michoacaensis and A. jaliscensis, but differs from A. quercuspomiformis comb. nov., A. oaxacae, A. tarasco, A. kinseyi n. sp. and A. bassae n. sp. by having a deformable surface under applied finger pressure, because the parenchyma is relatively soft in A. hidalgoensis, A. jaliscensis and A. michoacaensis.
Gall (Figs 15 A–B). Usually large, subglobose, detachable bud galls, sometimes with fine tip at apex. Maximum diameter 30–65 mm. Outer shell thin and fragile; internal tissue spongious and soft with central larval chamber about 5 mm in diameter.
Hosts. Quercus acutifolia, Q. calophylla, Q. castanea, Q. crassifolia, Q. crassipes, Q. mexicana.
Biology. Only females are known. We consider this species to be an asexual form as we have never obtained males after the emerging of more than 100 females from different localities. The mature galls were collected in late May to early June; most adults emerged soon after field collection, some were reared in November.
Distribution. Mexico: Hidalgo, Mexico and Tlaxcala states.
Remarks. After the examination of A. malinche types, we found great similarities between this species and A. hidalgoensis: lateral margin of eye rugulose; mesoscutum uniformly rugulose with finely alutaceous to smooth interspaces; forewing pattern within the morphological variability of A. hidalgoensis; mesoscutellum with longitudinal median depression posteriorly deep and shallow anteriorly, reaching scutellar foveae, with rugae forming transversal subparallel carinae along median depression; scutellar foveae rounded with distinct median carina, foveae smooth with sparse transversal carinae (Figs 5 A–B). Mesoscutellum is different in the holotype and the paratype of A. malinche; the holotype having an unusually broad median depression and short irregular median carina between scutellar foveae but it might be an aberrant variant of A. hidalgoensis; the paratype presented all the above mentioned similarities to A. hidalgoensis. Furthermore, the galls of both species are identical. Amphibolips malinche were sampled in the state of Tlaxcala and numerous specimens of A. hidalgoensis were collected 30 km away from the location of the two known specimens of A. malinche. The two specimens of A. malinche reared from galls of Q. mexicana, which shares distribution with the rest of host plant species (Q. calophylla, Q. crassifolia and Q. crassipes) in the states of Ciudad de México, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, México, Oaxaca, Puebla, Querétaro. Some morphological variability has been detected within this species: forewing pattern and metasomal tergum II with coriaceous sculpture. Forewing colour pattern is variable in basal cell pigmentation, sometimes clearer than first cubital and radial cell; also, distal third of radial cell sometimes presents a clear area shortly extended into second cubital cell. This character was used by Nieves-Aldrey et al. (2012) to identify A. jaliscensis (see below) and A. malinche, but we do not consider it a reliable character for A. malinche as we have encountered similar patterns in specimens of A. hidalgoensis. The coriaceous sculpture in metasomal tergum II is present in all the species with anterior margin of forewing infuscate, and particularly variable in A. hidalgoensis. This character ranges from coarsely coriaceous and extended past half-length of tergum, to be almost inconspicuous and confined to the posterior third of tergum bordering punctures. This species is currently the only one known to have such a wide range but no correlation with other characters has been found. Amphibolips hidalgoensis is by far the most frequently collected Amphibolips species in Mexico. Such sampling bias might be concealing other, poorly sampled, species’ variability and attributing as intraspecific variability to a possible widely spread interspecific common trait. Alternatively, A. hidalgoensis is probably a complex of species that cannot be sorted out by only morphological criteria. For all these reasons we consider A. malinche as a syn. nova of A. hidalgoensis.
description: Published as part of Cuesta-Porta, Víctor, Equihua-Martínez, Armando, Estrada-Venegas, Edith G., Cibrián-Tovar, David, Barrera-Ruíz, Uriel M., Silva, Salvador Ordaz, Sánchez, Imelda Virginia López, Melika, George & Pujade-Villar, Juli, 2020, Revision of the Amphibolips species of the ' nassa' complex from Mexico and central America (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), pp. 1-50 in Zootaxa 4877 (1) on pages 14-15, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4877.1.1, http://zenodo.org/record/4567340