Illidops mutabilis ( Telenga, 1955 ), 2559

Illidops mutabilis ( Telenga, 1955)

Figs 26–27

Apanteles mutabilis Telenga, 1955: 84–85 View in CoL [97–98].

Apanteles szaboi Papp, 1972: 341–343 View in CoL , figs 14–17.

Other material examined

HUNGARY – Pest County • 1 ♂; Apajpuszta ; [ 47.22527° N, 19.39620° E]; 18 Sep. 1952; M. Móczár leg.; J. Papp det.; paratype of Apanteles szaboi Papp, 1972 ; CNC, CNCHYM 01527 GoogleMaps . – Budapest • 1 ♀; Budapest; 31 Dec. 1931; Biró leg.; J. Papp det.; paratype of Apanteles szaboi Papp, 1972 ; CNC, CNCHYM 01528 .

Species concept

Our species concept is based on our observations of a female and male paratype of the junior synonym A. szaboi deposited at the CNC, the COI sequence of the male paratype, and information from Papp (1972, 1981), Tobias & Kotenko (1986) and Kotenko (2007). The molecular information is conflicting and there are several unsolved questions, including the synonymy of A. szaboi → **.

Ecology / host information

? Pyralidae :? Etiella zinckenella .

Distribution

PAL: Austria, Bulgaria, Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Romania, Russia (KDA), Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine.

Molecular data

A female and male paratype of the junior synonym A. szaboi are stored at the CNC and both had a leg picked for sequencing in 2016. However, the male specimen did not yield any sequence and the resulting sequence of the female specimen is rather short (164 bp), but of medium to high quality. The male paratype (CNCHYM 01527) was later included in our test of attempting to sequence historical DNA via shotgun sequencing and yielded a COI sequence of 600 bp. It aligns for 532 bp with the sequences of our fresh German material in BIN BOLD:AEI2559 ( Fig. 28) and they match 100%. However, with 13 mutations over a length of 164 bp (7.93% difference) the sequence of the female paratype does not match the sequences in BIN BOLD:AEI2559, the voucher specimens of the cluster which we tentatively associate with this species. Unfortunately, we were unable to sequence the female specimen again. The reasons for this mismatch could be due to an error in the sequences, or it might be that the female and male paratypes do not belong to the same species. Both specimens were collected almost 20 years apart from different locations in Hungary, so we cannot currently draw any conclusions about the association of the sexes.

Remarks

Syntypes female and male, depository unknown. Country of type locality: Ukraine. Female holotype of A. szaboi at HNHM, country of type locality: Hungary.

Apanteles szaboi was synonymized by Kotenko ( Tobias & Kotenko 1986), which was disputed by Papp (1988) in a subsequent paper. Then, in 2007, Kotenko listed it again as a synonym of I. mutabilis ( Kotenko 2007) . With the type depository of I. mutabilis unknown, we cannot currently make an unambiguous conclusion on these two names; rather, we accept the most recent treatment by Kotenko (2007) as a provisional solution, but caution that there is no solid basis at present to support Kotenko’s view over Papp’s. The characters differentiating A. szaboi from I. urgo , I. mutabilis and I. electilis according to Papp (1981: 272) are: “Head in frontal view, in comparison to next three species, appearing rather elongated i.e. as broad between eyes as high medially. Glossa long, about half as long as basitarsus of the fore leg. Ocelli small, forming a very low triangle: hind imaginary tangent to anterior ocellus transecting posterior pair of ocelli”. Particularly the rather elongate glossa indicates that this species should be reexamined and compared to I. rostratus ; see more details in the remarks of that species. Papp’s description of A. szaboi matches the female deposited at the CNC (CNCHYM 01528), although we would not consider the ocelli particularly small. As the type depository of I. mutabilis is unknown and we had no paratypes available, our current concept of I. mutabilis is mostly based on the paratypes of A. szaboi ; however, as mentioned before, we were unable to investigate this synonymy. In addition to that, the male and female paratypes available at the CNC might not represent the same species. Both specimens were collected almost 20 years apart from different locations in Hungary, so we cannot currently draw any conclusions about the association of the sexes. For further information on male and female specimen associations by Papp based mostly on sampling locality, see the remarks under I. barcinonensis . Voucher specimens of BOLD:AEI2559 ( Fig. 28) morphologically match the current concept of I. mutabilis . However, with the holotype depository unknown, progress in this taxon is impeded. The host is not recorded from any type material and the association first appears in Tobias & Kotenko (1986), and not many details about the rearing event are provided: “Parasite of Etiella zinckenella Tr. (Phycitidae); cocoons rosy, isolated” ( Tobias & Kotenko 1986: 753).