Atrusca pictor ( Kinsey, 1936 )

Atrusca pictor ( Kinsey, 1936)

Figs 368–423 View FIGURES 368–373 View FIGURES 374–377 View FIGURES 378–381 View FIGURES 382–387 View FIGURES 388–391 View FIGURES 392–395 View FIGURES 396–401 View FIGURES 402–405 View FIGURES 406–409 View FIGURES 410–415 View FIGURES 416–419 View FIGURES 420–423

Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pictor Kinsey, 1936: 123 , female, gall.

Atrusca pictor (Kinsey) : Weld 1952: 315.

Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pulex Kinsey, 1936: 125 , female, gall. Synonym in Pujade-Villar et al. (2016).

Atrusca pulex (Kinsey) : Weld 1952: 315.

Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pusa Kinsey, 1936: 129 , female, gall. Synonym in Pujade-Villar et al. (2016).

Atrusca pusa (Kinsey) : Weld 1952: 315.

Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pumilio Kinsey, 1936: 126 , female, male. Synonym in Pujade-Villar et al. (2016).

Atrusca pumilio (Kinsey) : Weld 1952: 315.

Types examined. HOLOTYPE female Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pictor “Miquihuana 25NW Tams. 8500’, Mex. Gall 11.12.35, 8 fms. 11.26.35”, “ Q. cordifolia, Kinsey View in CoL coll.”, red “ Cynips pictor , Holo- Paratype ”. HOLOTYPE female Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pulex “Rio Verde 14W S.L.P. 6500’, Mex. Gall 12.9.31, 5 fms. 3.2.32”, “ Q. macrophylla, Kinsey View in CoL coll.”, red “ Cynips pulex , Holo- Paratype ”. HOLOTYPE female Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pumilio “Pachuca 7N Hgo 8700’, Mex. Gall 1.15.32, 7 fms. 3.17.32”, “ Q. repanda, Kinsey View in CoL coll.”, red “ Cynips pumilio , Holo- Paratype ”. HOLOTYPE female Cynips View in CoL ( dugesi ) pusa “Jacala 24 SW Hgo 6800’, Mex. Gall 12.1.35, 17 fms. 12.14.19”, “ Q. grisea, Kinsey View in CoL coll.”, red “ Cynips pusa , Holo- Paratype ”. All HOLOTYPEs are deposited in AMNH, NYC, examined by GM.

Material examined. For Cynips ( dugesi ) pictor seven paratype females “Miquihuana, Tams 25NW, Mex. 8500’, galls 11.12.35”, “ Q. cordifolia Kinsey coll.” red label “ Cynips pictor Paratype ”. For Cynips ( dugesi ) pulex one PARATYPE females “Rio Verde 14W, S.L.P. 6500’, Mex., galls 12.4.31, 5 females to 3.2.32”, “Q. macrophilla Kinsey coll.” red label “ Cynips pulex Paratype ”. For Cynips ( dugesi ) pusa four PARATYPE females “ Jalisco 24SW, Hgo 6800’, Mex., galls 12.1.35., 13 females 12.14.35”, “ Q. repanda var. Kinsey coll.”, red label “ Cynips pusa . Paratype.”

Diagnosis. Atrusca pictor differs from the rest of the Atrusca species by being brachypterous, with fore wings not surpassing the posterior margin of the body and lacking parts of the wing venation either by absence, discontinuities or faintly colored veins. The rest of the Atrusca species can exhibit either fully developed or shortened wings, but always with a complete and conspicuous venation.

Re-description. Asexual female ( Figs 368–380 View FIGURES 368–373 View FIGURES 374–377 View FIGURES 378–381 , 382–394 View FIGURES 382–387 View FIGURES 388–391 View FIGURES 392–395 , 396–408 View FIGURES 396–401 View FIGURES 402–405 View FIGURES 406–409 , 410–422 View FIGURES 410–415 View FIGURES 416–419 View FIGURES 420–423 ). Mesosoma dark brown, mesoscutum without darker stripes along anterior parallel and parapsidal lines; head, antenna, legs, metasoma light brown, second metasomal tergum with black band posteriorly.

Head ovate in frontal view, alutaceous, with sparse white setae, 1.25–1.3× as broad as high and narrower than mesosoma in frontal view, 1.8–2.1× as broad as long in dorsal view. Gena alutaceous, not or very slightly broadened behind eye in frontal view, narrower than transverse diameter of eye in lateral view. Malar space alutaceous, with delicate striae radiating from clypeus and reaching to 1/3 of malar space length; malar sulcus absent; eye 2.1–2.8× as high as height of malar space. Inner margins of eyes slightly diverging ventrally. POL 1.2–1.7× as long as OOL; OOL 1.9× as long as diameter of lateral ocellus and 1.2–1.7× as long as LOL; all ocelli ovate, of same size. Transfacial distance 1.3× as long as height of eye and 1.4–1.7× as long as height of lower face; diameter of antennal torulus 1.5–2.0× as long as distance between them, distance between torulus and eye 1.1–1.3× as long as diameter of torulus; lower face alutaceous, shining, with white setae, denser than on the rest of head; slightly elevated median area smooth, shining, without setae. Interocellar area not elevated above head in frontal view. Clypeus impressed, uniformly delicately alutaceous, trapezoid, broader than high, with few long setae; ventrally rounded, emarginate, without median incision; anterior tentorial pit large, rounded, epistomal sulcus and clypeo-pleurostomal line broad, well impressed. Frons and interocellar area delicately alutaceous, without striae, with few short setae. Vertex, occiput, postgena alutaceous-reticulate, postocciput smooth, shining, without setae; posterior tentorial pit large, ovate, area below impressed; occipital foramen above as high as height of postgenal bridge; hypostomal carina emarginate, continuing into postgenal sulci which run parallel in ventral part, bent outwards in dorsal part and slightly broader than width of occipital foramen, postgenal bridge anteriorly broader than posteriorly. Antenna longer than head+mesosoma, with 12 flagellomeres, pedicel 1.4–1.6× as long as broad, F1 shorter or slightly longer than length of scape+pedicel and 1.1–1.3× as long as F2; F2 equal or slightly longer than F3; F3 nearly equal or slightly longer thanF4, F5=F6, subsequent flagellomeres progressively shorter, F12 longer than F11; placodeal sensilla on F3–F12.

Mesosoma 1.1–1.3× as long as high, with white setae. Pronotum partially delicately coriaceous, with or without transversely orientated delicate striae posteriorly or delicately coriaceous in dorsoposterior 1/3, smooth shining on the rest of area; propleuron alutaceous along sides, smooth, shining in central part, with dense white setae. Mesoscutum alutaceous to delicately coriaceous, with or without piliferous points, with sparse white setae, denser in anterior 1/3; slightly longer than broad (greatest width measured across mesoscutum at level of base of tegulae). Notaulus complete, deep, broad, with smooth, glabrous bottom, posteriorly broader and slightly converging; anterior parallel lines impressed, extend to 1/4 of mesoscutum length, parapsidal lines indistinct, hardly traceable, indicated by smooth stripe; median mesoscutal line absent; parascutal carina narrow, smooth, reaching notaulus. Mesoscutellum uniformly coriaceous to dull rugose, broader in posterior 1/3, slightly longer than broad, posteriorly rounded; overhanging metanotum; mesoscutellar foveae transverse, broader than high, with smooth, shining, without rugae, separated by narrow elevated coriaceous central carina. Circumscutellar carina absent or partially present but weak impressed, very rarely completely visible. Mesopleuron alutaceous in anterior 1/3, rest of mesopleuron and speculum smooth, shining, with scattered setae; mesopleural triangle alutaceous, shining, with few setae; dorsal and lateral axillar areas smooth, shining, with white short setae; subaxillular bar smooth, shining, most posterior part slightly shorter or equal to height of metanotal trough; metapleural sulcus reaching mesopleuron above midheight or in its upper 1/3, upper part of sulcus distinct. Metascutellum delicately coriaceous, as high as or higher than height of smooth, shining ventral impressed area; metanotal trough smooth, shining, without setae; central propodeal area smooth, shining, with few longitudinal rugae posterolaterally; broadest part in posterior 1/3–1/4, lateral propodeal carinae gradually bent outwards; lateral propodeal area smooth, shining, with long dense white setae. Nucha with delicate longitudinal sulci laterally, smooth, shining dorsocentrally. Tarsal claws toothed, with basal lobe.

Brachypterous, fore wing as long as body, margin with long dense cilia, with slightly darker spots and stripes, veins dark brown, radial cell open, 1.5× as long as broad; with veins often faint, not impressed on all length, discontinuous or absent; when they are present, R1 and Rs nearly reaching wing margin and R1 strongly curved apically; areolet absent, Rs+M inconspicuous, traceable along entire length, reaching basalis in the lower half of its height.

Metasoma longer than head+mesosoma, longer than high in lateral view; second metasomal tergum extending 3/4–4/5 metasoma length of in dorsal view, with white setae anterolaterally, without band of micropunctures posteriorly; subsequent terga without micropunctures, without setae. Hypopygium without micropunctures, prominent part of ventral spine of hypopygium 2.5–3.8× as long as broad in ventral view, with long setae ventrally which extend beyond apex of spine.

Body length 1.8–3.8 mm (including synonyms) ( Kinsey 1936).

Morphological comments. Kinsey (1936: 93) separates the species ( A. pictor , A. pumilio , A. pulex and A. pusa ) by small details in the color of the body, the appearance of the fore wing veins and, in the case of A. pumilio , also the presence of piliferous points on the mesoscutum. Studying the large type series deposited in the AMNH, we observed that these characters are variable in each of them, which is why it was proposed (Pujade-Villar et al. 2016) to consider them as a single valid species: A. pictor (= A. pumilio , = A. pulex , = A. pusa ). This species, with the proposed synonyms, unlike the other brachypterous species, is characterized by having a complete fore wing venation or reduced veins in the same samplings (not impressed on all length, discontinuous or absent). Looking more carefully we could distinguish three groups of specimens: (i) those with mesoscutum without piliferous points, or very inconspicous ( A. pictor , Fig. 376 View FIGURES 374–377 ), (ii) those with piliferous points on the mesoscutum and with posterocentrally pointed mesoscutellum ( A. pumilio , Figs 403–404 View FIGURES 402–405 ), and (iii) similar to the previous two but with a posteriorly rounded mesoscutellum ( A. pulex , Figs 389–390 View FIGURES 388–391 and A. pusa , Figs 4017–418). Examining the material collected by us, we concluded that the tip of the mesoscutellum, due to the rough sculpture, may have distal and central carinae or wrinkles protruded more than the lateral ones and specimens from different localities may or may not have these carinae, so we conclude that the separation of these species based on the presence of those carinae is artificial. On the other hand, it is true that A. pictor has the mesoscutellum without piliferous points or with little obvious piliferous points, but some specimens also have a pointed mesoscutellum as occurs usually in ’ pumilio ’. In addition, some specimens with other morphologies may present visible piliferous points, although they are very scarce, thus we have not yet found morphological differences that can maintain these species as distinct valid ones. New collections and the use of a molecular data might be useful to solve this problem. At the moment we continue to consider the conclusion established in Pujade-Villar et al. (2016) as the correct one.

Gall ( Figs 381 View FIGURES 378–381 , 395 View FIGURES 392–395 , 409 View FIGURES 406–409 , 423 View FIGURES 420–423 ). The gall is similar to all galls of Kinsey’s bella and dugesi complexes, globular. Mature galls rich reddish or brownish tan, lightly but in most cases distinctly spotted, not shining, up to 17 mm, in average 12 mm in diameter.

Biology. The asexual generation is only known to induce leaf galls on Q. magnoliifolia (= Q. macrophylla ), Q. potosina , Q. pringlei , Q. repanda , Q. tardifolia . Galls mature in late autumn; adults start to emerge from November– December till January–February next year.

Distribution. Mexico: Hidalgo, San Luis Potosi, Tamaulipas.