Abstract
Campoletis Förster, 1869 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Campopleginae) is a species-rich genus with more than 110 valid species known worldwide, most of them occurring in the Palaearctic and Nearctic regions. However, Campoletis species of the Neotropics are rather poorly discovered, previously only six species were known to occur in the region. In this paper Campoletis yaga sp. nov. is described from Chile, with notes on the identification of the species.
Introduction
Campoletis Förster, 1869 is a species-rich genus of family Ichneumonidae, subfamily Campopleginae. Species of the genus are koinobiont endoparasitoids of (almost exclusively) lepidopteran larvae (Yu et al. 2016), including several pests (see. e.g., Ram et al. (2010)). Presently more than 110 valid species of Campoletis are known, most of them occurring in the Palaearctic and Nearctic regions (Yu et al. 2016); several new species were recently described from the Western Palaearctic region (Riedel 2017, Vas 2019a), from the Eastern Palaearctic region (Vas 2019b, 2023, Wei et al. 2020, Vas et al. 2022), and from the Afrotropical region (Vas 2021).
However, Campoletis species of the Neotropics were rather poorly studied. The last species description from the region was published 76 years ago (López Cristóbal 1947), and, prior to this study, only six valid species were known to occur in the region: C. argentifrons (Cresson, 1864), C. chlorideae Uchida, 1957, C. curvicauda (López Cristóbal, 1947), C. flavicincta (Ashmead, 1890), C. grioti (Blanchard, 1946), and C. sonorensis (Cameron, 1886) (Townes & Townes 1966, Yu et al. 2016). Only one of them, C. sonorensis, was reported from Chile (Machuca et al. 1988, Molina-Ochoa et al. 2003). It is worth to note that C. argentifrons, C. flavicincta, and C. sonorensis occur also in the Nearctic region, and C. chlorideae, which is native to the Palaearctic and Oriental regions, was introduced to the Lesser Antilles for the biological control of Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Yaseen 1975, Yu et al. 2016).
In this paper, a new species of the genus, namely Campoletis yaga sp. nov., is described from Chile; with this newly described species, the number of Campoletis species known to occur in the Neotropical region rises to seven, while the number of the species known from Chile rises to two. It is, in accordance with Araujo and Di Giovanni (2021), to draw attention to the fact that the apparently low diversity of Campopleginae in Chile [only 16 species according to Yu et al. (2016)] is misleading, and is only explained by the lack of studies; the diversity of the subfamily in the region is undoubtedly much higher than previously expected.
Material and methods
Taxonomy and nomenclature follow Yu and Horstmann (1997) and Yu et al. (2016); complete nomenclatural history of the mentioned taxa is not repeated here, since it is given in detail in these references. Morphological terminology follows Gauld (1991) and Gauld et al. (1997); however, in cases of wing veins the corresponding terminology of Townes (1969) is also used. Terminology of body surface sculpturing follows Harris (1979). The geographic delimitation of the Neotropical region follows Townes and Townes (1966).
TAXONOMY
Family Ichneumonidae
Subfamily Campopleginae
Genus Campoletis Förster, 1869
Type species: Mesoleptus tibiator Cresson, 1864, subsequent designation by Houghton (1907).
Campoletis yaga sp. nov.
Campoletis yaga sp. nov., 1–6 = holotype female (HNHM-HYM 155757): 1 = lateral habitus, scale bar = 1 mm; 2 = dorsal habitus, scale bar = 1 mm; 3 = head in dorsal view; 4 = head in frontal view; 5 = propodeal carination; 6 = fore wing; 7–8 = paratype male (HNHM-HYM 155758): 7 = lateral habitus, scale bar = 1 mm; 8 = head in dorsal view
Citation: Animal Taxonomy and Ecology 70, 1; 10.1556/1777.2024.12681
Type material – Holotype: female, “Chile, El Manzano, 2007.01., leg. Gy. Hangay”, specimen card-mounted, id. HNHM-HYM 155757. Paratypes: two males, same label data, specimens card-mounted, id. HNHM-HYM 155758–155759.
Diagnosis – The new species can be distinguished from all known species of the genus by the following character states in combination: ocular-ocellar distance as long as ocellus diameter, distance between lateral ocelli 1.6–1.8 × as long as ocellus diameter; gena in dorsal view 0.65–0.75 × as long as eye width, roundly narrowed behind eyes; apical margin of clypeus weakly, lamelliformly produced medially, without distinct median tooth; malar space almost as long as basal width of mandible; notaulus discernible; mesopleuron granulate with wrinkles anterior to and below the finely granulate speculum; propodeal carinae complete, anterior transverse carina medially elevated; area superomedia hexagonal, about as long as wide, posteriorly closed, its lateral sides convergent behind costulae; areolet petiolate, second recurrent vein (2m-cu) strongly proximad to middle of areolet; nervulus (cu-a) interstitial, strongly inclivous; postnervulus (abscissa of Cu1 between 1m-cu and Cu1a + Cu1b) intercepted distinctly below its middle; lower external angle of second discal cell almost right-angled; second tergite in female 0.9×, in male 1.1–1.2× as long as its apical width; ovipositor sheath 0.9× as long as first tergite, ovipositor almost straight; body and legs black, except in both sexes palpi and mandible medially, in female fore tibia partly, in male fore femur, tibia and middle tibia partly yellowish brown.
Description – Female (Figs 1–6). Body length 5.5 mm, fore wing length 4.5 mm.
Head: First flagellomere 3× as long as its apical width; preapical flagellomeres quadrate to slightly wider than long. Head transverse, matt, granulate with weak, indistinct punctures; hairs dense and short. Ocular-ocellar distance as long as ocellus diameter, distance between lateral ocelli 1.6× as long as ocellus diameter. Inner eye orbits weakly indented, parallel. Gena in dorsal view 0.65× as long as eye width, roundly narrowed behind eyes. Occipital carina complete, reaching hypostomal carina before base of mandible; hypostomal carina slightly elevated. Frons almost flat in profile, slightly impressed above toruli, median longitudinal carina absent. Face almost flat in profile. Clypeus very weakly separated from face, almost flat in profile, its apical margin convex and weakly, lamelliformly produced medially, without distinct median tooth. Malar space subequal to basal width of mandible. Mandible relatively elongate, lower margin with narrow flange from base towards teeth, flange obliquely narrowed before teeth; mandibular teeth equal.
Mesosoma: Mesosoma stout, matt, granulate with rather weak, barely discernible traces of punctures, and with dense, short hairs. Pronotum with transverse wrinkles on lower half; epomia distinct. Mesoscutum about as long as wide, strongly convex in profile; notaulus discernible, reaching beyond middle length of mesoscutum. Scuto-scutellar groove wide and deep. Scutellum convex in profile, without lateral carina. Mesopleuron granulate with distinct wrinkles anterior to and below speculum; speculum very finely granulate, subpolished. Epicnemial carina complete, pleural part bent to anterior margin of mesopleuron reaching it below its middle height, transversal part (i.e., the part at the level of sternaulus running through the epicnemium to the ventral edge of pronotum) not developed, ventral part (behind fore coxae) slightly elevated. Sternaulus indistinct. Posterior transverse carina of mesosternum complete, elevated. Metanotum 0.4× as long as scutellum. Metapleuron partly rugose, without juxtacoxal carina; submetapleural carina complete, elevated. Pleural carina of propodeum complete; propodeal spiracle small, subcircular, separated from pleural carina by ca. 2× its length, connected to pleural carina by a distinct, smooth ridge. Propodeum short, convex in profile, coarsely rugose, posteriorly slightly impressed. Propodeal carinae complete, anterior transverse carina medially elevated. Area basalis trapezoid, shorter than its anterior width. Area superomedia hexagonal, about as long as wide, its lateral sides behind costulae convergent, posteriorly closed. Area petiolaris wide, not confluent with area superomedia. Fore wing with distinctly petiolate areolet, 3rs-m present, second recurrent vein (2m-cu) strongly proximad to middle of areolet; distal abscissa of Rs short, straight; nervulus (cu-a) interstitial, strongly inclivous; postnervulus (abscissa of Cu1 between 1m-cu and Cu1a + Cu1b) intercepted distinctly below its middle by Cu1a; lower external angle of second discal cell almost right-angled. Hind wing with nervellus (cu-a + abscissa of Cu1 between M and cu-a) reclivous, broken, intercepted by discoidella (Cu1) distinctly below its middle; discoidella spectral, proximally connected to nervellus. Coxae finely granulate. Hind femur relatively elongate, 5× as long as high. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws about as long as arolium, basally weakly pectinate.
Metasoma: Metasoma short, weakly compressed, matt, finely granulate to shagreened, impunctate, and with moderately dense, short hairs. First tergite 2.1× as long as its apical width; glymma distinct; dorsomedian carinae of first tergite anterior to spiracles distinct. Second tergite 0.9× as long as its apical width; thyridium oval, its distance from anterior margin of tergite about as long as its length. Posterior margins of apical tergites straight. Ovipositor sheath 0.9× as long as first tergite, 0.6× as long as hind tibia; ovipositor almost straight.
Colour: Black, except palpi, mandible medially, and fore tibia internally yellowish brown. Wings hyaline, wing veins and pterostigma brown.
Male (Figs 7–8): Similar to female in all characters described above, except: first flagellomere slightly stouter than in female (2.5–2.8× as long as its apical width), preapical flagellomeres longer than wide; distance between lateral ocelli 1.7–1.8× as long as ocellus diameter; gena slightly longer (in dorsal view 0.70–0.75× as long as eye width) and slightly less narrowed behind eyes than in female; second tergite 1.1–1.2× as long as its apical width; claspers wide, apically rounded; fore femur and middle tibia partly yellowish brown.
Distribution – Chile.
Etymology – The new species is named after Baba Yaga, the witch from the Slavic folklore. Baba Yaga shares the dark, ominous appearance and the characteristic nose with the new species (the latter in the form of the lamelliformly produced median part of clypeal margin), not to mention the occasional appetite for immature victims. Proper noun in apposition, ending not to be changed.
Remarks on identification – Regarding the lack of distinct clypeal tooth, the posteriorly closed area superomedia, the position of the anterior end of the second recurrent vein (rather strongly proximad to middle of areolet), the short and almost straight ovipositor, and the entirely dark body and hind legs, the new species is not quite similar to, and cannot be confused with any other Neotropical species of the genus. Campoletis curvicauda can be readily distinguished from the new species by its strongly upcurved ovipositor, yellow tegula, and extensively reddish brown metasoma, C. grioti by its distinct clypeal tooth, reduced propodeal carinae, yellow tegula, and not entirely dark metasoma and hind legs, while C. argentifrons, C. chlorideae, C. flavicincta, and C. sonorensis by their yellow tegula, extensively to almost entirely reddish metasoma and hind femora, externo-medially distinctly, contrastingly lighter hind tibiae, and more or less distinct clypeal tooth. Among the species known from the Nearctic region, due to the lack of distinct clypeal tooth and the dark colouration, the new species is most similar to C. longiceps (Roman, 1926). However, the latter species can be easily distinguished from the new species by its elongate malar space (distinctly longer than basal width of mandible (cf. Jussila 1996: fig. 11)), reduced propodeal carination (area superomedia posteriorly entirely opened, laterally partly opened, costulae partly indistinct, lateral longitudinal carinae rather weak (cf. Jussila 1996: fig. 14)), and not entirely dark hind tibiae.
*
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to György Hangay for collecting and donating the material to the HNHM, to Mabel Alvarado (Museo de Historia Natural, Lima) for her help in obtaining relevant literature, and to Viktória Szőke (HNHM) for the drawing and post-image works. This paper was supported by the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
References
Araujo RO, Di Giovanni F (2021) Description of the first species of Nemeritis Holmgren (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Campopleginae) from the Southern Hemisphere, with a key to the new world species. Zootaxa 5023(2): 263–272. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5023.2.6
Ashmead WH (1890) Description of new Ichneumonidae in the collection of the U.S. National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 12: 387–451. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.12-779.387
Blanchard EE (1946) Seis nuevos Campopleginos Argentinos (Hym. Ichneumonidae). Acta Zoologica Lilloana 3: 289–305.
Camargo LF, Brito RA, Penteado-Dias AM (2015) Redescription of Campoletis sonorensis (Cameron 1886) (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae), parasitoid of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 75(4): 989–998. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.04914
Cameron P (1886) Hymenoptera 1. pp. 241–328. In: Godman FD, Salvin O (eds): Biologia Centrali-Americana. Zoology. Porter, London.
Cresson ET (1864) Descriptions of North American Hymenoptera in the collection of the entomological society of philadelphia. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia 3: 257–321.
Förster A (1869) Synopsis der Familien und Gattungen der Ichneumonen. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande und Westfalens 25: 135–221.
Gauld ID (1991) The Ichneumonidae of Costa Rica, 1. Introduction, keys to subfamilies, and keys to the species of the lower Pimpliform subfamilies Rhyssinae, Poemeniinae, Acaenitinae and Cylloceriinae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 47: 1–589.
Gauld ID, Wahl D, Bradshaw K, Hanson P, Ward S (1997) The Ichneumonidae of Costa Rica, 2. Introduction and keys to species of the smaller subfamilies, Anomaloninae, Ctenopelmatinae, Diplazontinae, Lycorininae, Phrudinae, Tryphoninae (excluding Netelia) and Xoridinae, with an appendix on the Rhyssinae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 57: 1–485.
Harris RA (1979) A glossary of surface sculpturing. Occasional Papers in Entomology 28: 1–31.
Houghton CO (1907) Reports of the Delaware college agricultural experimental station. Reports 16–18: 89.
Jussila R (1996) Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera) of Greenland found in Scoresbysund (Ittoggortoormiit). Entomologica Fennica 7(3): 145–156. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.83903
López Cristóbal U (1947) Dos nuevos Himenópteros útiles. Revista de Investigaciones Agricolas 1: 279–282.
Machuca JRL, Arretz PV, Araya JEC (1988) Parasitism of Noctuids in cultivated artichokes in the metropolitan region: Identification and preliminary observations of the parasites. Revista Chilena de Entomologia 16: 83–87.
Molina-Ochoa J, Carpenter JE, Heinrichs EA, Foster JE (2003) Parasitoids and parasites of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas and Caribbean basin: An inventory. Florida Entomologist 86(3): 254–289. https://doi.org/10.1653/0015-4040(2003)086[0254:PAPOSF]2.0.CO;2
Porter CC (1998) Guia de los generos de Ichneumonidae en la region neantartica del sur de Sudamerica. Opera Lilloana 42: 1–234.
Ram S, Singh S, Mall P (2010) Effect of intercrops on the temporal parasitization of Helicoverpa armigera (Hub.) by larval parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae Uchida in tomato. Environment and Ecology 28: 2485–2489.
Riedel M (2017) The Western Palaearctic species of the genus Campoletis Förster (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae). Spixiana 40(1): 95–137.
Roman A (1926) Die Ichneumoniden des arktischen Sibiriens nach der Sammlung der Russischen Polar-Expedition 1900–1903. Mémoires de l'Académie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg 29(7): 1–14.
Townes H (1969) The genera of Ichneumonidae. Part 1. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 11: 1–300.
Townes H (1970) The genera of Ichneumonidae. Part 3. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 13: 1–307.
Townes H, Townes M (1966) A catalogue and reclassification of the Neotropic Ichneumonidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute 8: 1–367.
Uchida T (1957) Ein neuer Schmarotzer der Kartoffelmotte in Japan (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Mushi 30: 29–30.
Vas Z (2019a) Contributions to the taxonomy, identification, and biogeography of the Western Palaearctic species of Campoletis Förster (Ichneumonidae: Campopleginae). Zootaxa 4565(3): 373–382. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4565.3.4
Vas Z (2019b) New species and new records of Campopleginae from the Palaearctic region (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Folia entomologica hungarica 80: 247–271. https://doi.org/10.17112/FoliaEntHung.2019.80.247
Vas Z (2021) New species and records of Afrotropical Campoletis Förster, 1869 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Campopleginae). Annales Musei historico-naturalis hungarici 113: 39–49. https://doi.org/10.53019/AnnlsMusHistNatHung.2021.113.39
Vas Z. (2023) “Revisiting” North Korea: New species and new records of Campopleginae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Annales Musei historico-naturalis hungarici 115: 215–235. https://doi.org/10.53019/AnnlsMusHistNatHung.2023.115.215
Vas Z, Rezaei Sh, Fallahzadeh M, Mohammadi-Khoramabadi A, Saghaei N, Ljubomirov T (2022) Contributions to the taxonomy, identification, and biogeography of Palaearctic Campopleginae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), with the descriptions of four new species from Iran. Zootaxa 5134(2): 261–274. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5134.2.5
Viereck HL (1925) A preliminary revision of the Campopleginae in the Canadian national collection, Ottawa. Canadian Entomologist 57: 176–181, 198–204, 223–228, 296–303. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent57296-12
Wei Y-W, Zhou Y-B, Zou Q-C, Sheng M-L (2020) A new species of Campoletis Förster (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) with a key to species known from China, Japan and South Korea. ZooKeys 1004: 99–108. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1004.57913
Yaseen M (1975) A further note on the introduction of Heliothis parasites into the Lesser Antilles. Pest Articles and News Summaries 21(2): 155–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670877509411387
Yu DS, Horstmann K (1997) A catalogue of world Ichneumonidae (Hymenoptera). The American Entomological Institute, Gainesville, 1558 pp.
Yu DS, Achterberg C. van, Horstmann K (2016) Taxapad 2016, Ichneumonoidea 2015. Database on flash-drive. www.taxapad.com, Nepean, Ontario, Canada.
