The identity of Neocales Risbec (: )

Andrew Polaszek

POLASZEK, A., 1993. THE IDENTITY OF NEOCALES RISBEC (HYMENOPTERA: SIGNIPHORIDAE). - ENT BER., AMST. 53 (7): 99-102.

Abstract: The chalcidoid genus Neocales Risbec, described in , is transferred to Signiphoridae and synonym- ised with Chartocerus Motschulsky. A lectotype is designated for the type species of Neocales, N. philippiae, which is redescribed. Casca philippiae Risbec, also described in Aphelinidae, is transferred to the eulophid genus Euderomphale Girault.

Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agricultural University, P.O. Box 8031; 6700 EH Wageningen, The Nether¬ lands/International Institute of Entomology, c/o The Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK.

Introduction

During the 1950’s the French taxonomist Jean of Casca philippiae Risbec (1957a), also des¬ Risbec described numerous taxa of parasitic cribed in Aphelinidae. This species was re¬ Hymenoptera from sub-Saharan Africa and tained in Aphelinidae by Annecke & Insley Madagascar, mostly taxa of some economic (1971) as Pteroptrixphilippiae (Risbec), Ptero- importance. Among these were two genera pterix being a senior synonym of Casca. Du¬ described in the chalcidoid family Alphelini- ring the present study C philippiae was disco¬ dae: Neocales (1957a) and Paulianaphelinus vered to be an eulophid belonging to the genus (1957b). Until recently, the identities of these Euderomphale Girault. genera remained unknown, and both were Morphological terms follow Woolley listed as "genera incertae sedis” in the most (1988). recent generic revision of the family (Hayat, 1983). In Annecke & Insley’s (1971) catalogue Signiphoridae of Ethiopian Aphelinidae Neocales and Pauli¬ anaphelinus were listed unchanged from Ris- Chartocerus Motschulsky, 1859: 171 (for full bec’s original descriptions, since they had not synonymy see Woolley, 1988). examined the type species of these genera (G. Neocales Risbec, 1957a: 271; type species Neo¬ L. Prinsloo, pers. comm.). Paulianaphelinus cales philippiae Risbec, 1957, by monotypy. has since been synonymized with Aphelinus syn. n. Dalman (Polaszek & Hayat, 1991). The cur¬ rent study was initiated following the discovery Chartocerus philippiae (Risbec) comb. n. of the syntypes of Neocales in the Muséum (figs. 1-4) National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), Paris. The syntype series was found to consist of three Neocales philippiae Risbec, 1957a: 271. Lecto¬ females and one male belonging to two species type 9 (here designated), [Madagascar] ”1014 of Chartocerus Motschulsky in the family Sig¬ (3) Aphelinidae ex coch[enille]. s[ur]/ Philip- niphoridae, not Aphelinidae where Risbec had pia''' ”Neocales philippiae Risbec”. Paralecto- originally placed Neocales (but see discussion types, 2 9,1(5 same data as lectotype (MNHN) below). [examined]. Access to some of Risbec’s types also presen¬ ted an opportunity to examine the holotype Female (lectotype). Coloration: As in the ma- 100 Ent. Ber., Amst. 53 (1993) jority of Chartocerus spp. head, antennae, sensilla. Mesoscutum with about 24 minute body and legs entirely brown/black except the setae, mostly in the posterior half. Scutellum tarsi somewhat paler, the mid tarsi palest. Fore with a row of about 12 fine setae along its wings proximally strongly infuscate below the posterior edge. Ovipositor about 1.5X the marginal vein, followed by a hyaline strip, the length of the hind femur. Fore wing setation as distal third uniformly, weakly infuscate (fig. 1). in fig. 1, typical for the genus. Maximum Hind wings uniformly hyaline (fig. 2). Mor¬ length of wing fringe a little less than half the phology: Mandibles bidentate. Posterior mar¬ maximum width of the fore wing disc. Hind gin of vertex narrowly rounded, head ortho- wing with small discal seta present, the maxi¬ gnathous. Antennae (figs. 3 and 4) with scape mum length of the wing fringe about half the a little more than 2X pedicel length. The club maximum width of the hind wing disc (fig. 2). a little more than 3X pedicel length. The scape Male (paralectotype). Coloration and mor¬ narrow, elongate; length slightly more than 5X phology as for female, except for genitalic maximum width. Funicle four-segmented, the characters. Genitalia closely resembling those first funicle segment the smallest, the fourth the of C. fimbriae Hayat (1976). Head missing. largest, the second and third segments approxi¬ Remarks. Risbec’s (unique) original slide mately equal. Club with many longitudinal contained four specimens mounted under two

Figs. 1-4. Chartocerus philip- piae (Risbec), female lectotype. 1, fore wing; 2, hind wing; 3, antenna; 4, detail of antenna showing funicle (Figs. 1-3 drawn to the same scale, scale line 0.1 mm). Ent. Ber., Amst. 53 (1993) 101

coverslips. I have cleared and remounted each Remarks. As in the case of the two Char¬ specimen on a separate slide in Canada bal¬ tocerus spp., Annecke & Insley (1971) had not sam. These four specimens represent two dif¬ examined the type material of this species. The ferent species of Chartocerus. In his original unique specimen in the MNHN labelled as description Risbec believed he was describing above is, in my opinion, undoubtedly the speci¬ four conspecific females. From the description men on which Risbec based his description of it is clear which of the two species in the syn- Casca philippiae. A lectotype designation is type series he was describing. I have therefore therefore not necessary here since Risbec designated as lectotype a female approxima¬ stated that the species was described from a ting most closely to his description. Fortu¬ unique specimen. The name ”Neocasca” on the nately, the only male in the syntype series is label is certainly a lapsus, understandable, to conspecific with the lectotype female, the other an extent, when one considers that in the same two females representing a second species. The paper Risbec’s next description was of Neo- two species are very easily separable by fore cales, and he had applied the prefix nNeo-n to wing characters; both the patterning and wing both Cales and Casca, both of which were, at fringe length differ fundamentally in the two the time, valid aphelinid genera. Examination species. C. philippiae is close to C. fimbriae of this specimen shows that it clearly belongs Hayat, which has the fourth funicle segment in the eulophid genus Euderomphale, which, larger, and the marginal fringe of the fore wing like many of the aphelinid genera, is a specialist longer. Specimens of (West African) Chartoce¬ parasite of whiteflies. rus in The Natural History Museum, London (NHM), tentatively determined by Dr J. S. Discussion Noyes as C. subaeneus (Foerster)jnowitzkyi (Domenichini) are closer to C. philippiae, but The and Signiphoridae of Africa, differ slightly in fore wing and hind wing cha¬ Madagascar and the associated islands have racters. been very little studied, either in terms of their The second species, represented by two fe¬ biology or their (Prinsloo, 1980). males, is close to C. hyalipennis Hayat, de¬ The purpose of this note is to properly place scribed from India, and may be conspecific generically some species whose true identity with specimens from Togo which I have exami¬ was previously unknown. I have stopped short ned in the Natural History Museum, London, at resolving problems at the species-level. identified as C. hyalipennis by Dr J. S. Noyes. Although Risbec was clearly mistaken in his Revisionary work on Africotropical Char¬ family placement of the species included here, tocerus will be needed before the two species a recent phylogenetic study (Woolley, 1988) treated here can be correctly placed at the spe¬ suggests that Signiphoridae may actually form cies-level. a monophyletic sister-group to part of Aphe- linidae (the Ablerus/ Azotus lineage), and may therefore eventually be regarded as a taxon Eulophidae within Aphelinidae. Thus Risbec’s family placement of Neocales may be correct, how¬ Euderomphale philippiae (Risbec) comb. n. ever fortuitously. Cascaphilippiae Risbec, 1957a: 269. Holotype Clearly further taxonomic studies are neces¬ ($, [Madagascar] ”1008 (2) ex cochenille sary on African aphelinids, and especially sig- s[ur]/ Philippia sp. Neocasca philippiae Ris¬ niphorids. These groups are of particular inter¬ bec” (MNHN) [examined]. est because their hosts, mostly whiteflies Pteroptrix philippiae (Risbec): Annecke & (Aleyrodidae) and scale (Coccoidea) Insley 1971: 36. are often of great economic importance. 102 Ent. Ber., Amst. 53 (1993)

Acknowledgments Hayat, M., 1983. The genera of Aphelinidae (Hymeno¬ ptera) of the World. - Syst. Ent. 8: 63-102. I am grateful to the Directorate General for International Motschulsky, N. der, 1859. IV. Entomology appliquée. Cooperation (DGIS) of the Netherlands Government and Insectes utiles et nuisibles. - Etudes ent. 8: 169-174. to Dr J. Casewitz-Weulersse (MNHN) for the opportunity PoLASZEK, A. & M. Hayat, 1991. The Identity of Pauli- to study Risbec’s types; also to Dr J. S. Noyes and the anaphelinus mariscusae Risbec (Hymenoptera: Aphe¬ Trustees of The Natural History Museum, London for linidae). - Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Filippo Silvestri 46 access to comparative Chartocerus specimens. Dr J. La¬ (1989): 21-24. Salle (International Institute of Entomology, London) Prinsloo, G. L., 1980. An illustrated guide to the families kindly confirmed the identity of Casca philippiae as an of African Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). - Sei. Euderomphale, and both Dr LaSalle and Dr G. L. Prin- Bull. Dep. Agric. Fish. Rep. S. Afr. 395: 1-66. sloo (Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria, South Risbec, J., 1957a. Aphelinidae de Madagascar (Hym. Africa) made useful comments on the first draft. Chalcidoidea). - Naturaliste malgache 9 (2): 263-272. Risbec, J., 1957b. Hyménoptères et Chal- cidoides. - Mém. Inst, scient. Madagascar (E) 7: 321- References 366. Annecke, D. P. & H. P. Insley, 1971. Catalogue of Ethi¬ Woolley, J. B., 1988. Phylogeny and classification of the opian & Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera: Chal- Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). - Syst. cidoidea). - Dep. Agric. Tech. Serv., Rep. S. Afr., Ent. 13: 465-501. Entomology Mem. 23: 1-53. Hayat, M., 1976. Some Indian species of Chartocerus (Hym.: Chalcidoidea: Signiphoridae). - Orient. Ins. 10: 161-164. Accepted 31 .iii. 1993.