Anaphes ( Anaphes ) nipponicus Kuwayama, 1932

Anaphes ( Anaphes) nipponicus Kuwayama, 1932 View in CoL

Figs 70–76 View Figs 70–74 View Figs 75, 76

Anaphes nipponicus Kuwayama, 1932: 93 View in CoL .

Anaphes nipponicus Kuwayama View in CoL : Togashi, 1974: 12 (host egg parasitism); Huber, 1992: 75

(list); Storozheva, 1989: 14–16 (host in the Russian Far East); Storozheva, 1990a: 113

(host); Storozheva, 1990b: 29 (parasitism, biology); Triapitsyn & Proshchalykin, 2012:

207 (list), Samková et al., 2017: 690–697 (taxonomic history, type information,

redescription, comparison with A. flavipes , distribution, host association); Triapitsyn &

Tselikh, 2019: 194 (list).

Anaphes ( Anaphes) nipponicus Kuwayama : Huber & Thuróczy, 2018: 27 (list, type information).

MATERIAL EXAMINED. Russia: Primorskii krai, Spasskiy rayon, Novosel’skoye,

sovkhoz Novosel’skiy, 2.VII 1986 (Buryi), from eggs of Oulema oryzae (Kuwayama, 1931)

on rice [1 badly shriveled ♀ ( Fig. 73 View Figs 70–74 ) + 2 incomplete specimens of undetermined sex +

parasitized eggs of the host ( Figs 70, 71 View Figs 70–74 ), IBPV], examined virtually (M.Yu. Proshchalykin,

krai, Russia). 70) Parasitized eggs of the host, Oulema oryzae , in rice leaf, 71) wings of unknown sex, 72) labels, 73) habitus of female in lateral view, 74) labels.

personal communication); the original labels (in Russian, Figs 72, 74 View Figs 70–74 ) also include the initial misidentification as “ Anaphes flavipes ” (determined by N.A. Storozheva).

EXTRALIMITAL MATERIAL EXAMINED. Japan: Honshu Island: Ishikawa Prefecture, Wajima , VII 1973, from eggs of Oulema oryzae on rice ( I. Togashi) [ 5 ♀, 3 ♂, ELKU]

(determined by T. Tachikawa in 1976). Kanagawa Prefecture, Yokohama , 10.VIII 1920 (C.

P. Clausen) [ 1 ♀, UCRC]. Republic of Korea: Kyungki-do, Kwangiu, Dochek, Taehwasan,

5.VIII 1998 ( J.-B. Leon, S.-H. Lee) [ 1 ♀, UCRC] .

DIAGNOSIS. FEMALE. Diagnosed, redescribed and illustrated in detail by Samková et al. (2017) except for the clava and the wings. Here I provide illustrations of the antenna ( Fig. View Figs 75, 76

75) and fore wing ( Fig. 76 View Figs 75, 76 ) to facilitate its recognition while using the key. In the reared specimens from Wajima, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan, antenna ( Fig. 75 View Figs 75, 76 ) with F2 very short and the combined length of F1 and F2 usually slightly shorter than F3 or at most about as long as F3, clava 3.1–3.9× as long as wide, a little shorter (about 0.9×) than the combined length of F5 and F6, with 6 mps; fore wing ( Fig. 76 View Figs 75, 76 ) 0.63 mm long, 6.4× as long as wide,

longest marginal seta 1.3× maximum wing width, marginal space separated from medial space by 1 complete line of setae; hind wing about 19× as long as wide, longest marginal seta 3.3×

maximum wing width, disc with 1 irregular, short row of a few setae apically; metatarsomere

1 at most about as long as metatarsomere 2.

MALE. Known (Kuwayama, 1932) and redescribed by Samková et al. (2017).

DISTRIBUTION. Russia; China ( Fujian, Taiwan), Japan (Bai, 2007; Samková et al.,

2017), and Republic of Korea *.

HOST. Chrysomelidae : Oulema oryzae (Kuwayama, 1931) . Under quarantine laboratory conditions in Washington State, USA, Anaphes nipponicus readily attacked, oviposited and successfully completed two generations on eggs of the fictitious host, O. melanopus (Miller

& Roberts, 2009).

REMARKS. I personally looked for the missing syntypes of A. nipponicus in the collection of Insect Museum, National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, NARO, Tsukuba,

Ibaraki, Japan ( ITLJ), to where S. Kuwayama’s collection had been moved (Samková et al.,

2017), during a brief visit in November 2019, but could not locate any. The examined specimens from Wajima City, Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan are vouchers of the study by Togashi

(1974).

Anaphes ( Anaphes) nipponicus of Fujian, China origin was evaluated in quarantine in

Washington State as a potential neoclassical biological control agent against the cereal leaf beetle O. melanopus ; it was concluded that it was not well adapted to the Pacific Northwest of the USA and thus not suitable for introduction and release against this invasive pest

(Miller & Roberts, 2009; Roberts, 2016).

Morphological separation of A. ( Anaphes) nipponicus from A. ( Anaphes) flavipes , as given by Samková et al. (2017), is not clearcut; their diagnosis of the former nominal species was not based on a sufficient number of complete female specimens. Their genetic comparison is thus highly warranted.