Cryptic or underworked? Taxonomic revision of the Antistrophus rufus species complex (Cynipoidea, Aulacideini)

Louis F. Nastasi; John F. Tooker; Charles K. Davis; Cecil N. Smith; Timothy S. Frey; M. J. Hatfield; Tara M. Presnall; Heather M. Hines; Andrew R. Deans

doi:10.3897/jhr.97.121918

Research Article

Cryptic or underworked? Taxonomic revision of the Antistrophus rufus species complex (Cynipoidea, Aulacideini)

Louis F. Nastasi^‡, John F. Tooker^§, Charles K. Davis^§, Cecil N. Smith^§, Timothy S. Frey^|, M. J. Hatfield^¶, Tara M. Presnall^§, Heather M. Hines^§, Andrew R. Deans^§

‡ Department of Entomology, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States of America

§ The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, United States of America

| The Ohio State University, Wooster, United States of America

¶ Unaffiliated, Cresco, United States of America

Corresponding author: Louis F. Nastasi ( lfnastasi@gmail.com )

Academic editor: Miles Zhang

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation: Nastasi LF, Tooker JF, Davis CK, Smith CN, Frey TS, Hatfield MJ, Presnall TM, Hines HM, Deans AR (2024) Cryptic or underworked? Taxonomic revision of the Antistrophus rufus species complex (Cynipoidea, Aulacideini). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 97: 399-439. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.97.121918

ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:9675CE30-77A6-458A-A3EE-56E032633E9C

Abstract

Cryptic species present challenges across many subdisciplines of biology. Not all “cryptic” species, however, are truly cryptic; many are simply underexplored morphologically. We examined this idea for the Antistrophus rufus species complex, which previously contained three species thought to be morphologically cryptic. To determine whether the A. rufus complex are truly cryptic species, we assessed species boundaries of members of the A. rufus species complex using morphological, ecological, and DNA barcode data, and tested whether a set of 50 morphological characters could adequately diagnose these species. We revealed that this complex includes five species, and that there are useful phenotypic diagnostic characters for all members of this species complex. This enabled redescription of four species and the description of Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov., which induces externally inconspicuous galls in stems of Silphium integrifolium Michx., a host not associated with other members of the complex. We use these new diagnostic characters to construct a key to the five species of the rufus complex. We conclude that the A. rufus complex was not a true case of cryptic species. Our Bayesian analysis of DNA barcode data suggests possible cospeciation of members of the rufus complex and their Silphium host plants, but further study is necessary to better understand the evolution of host use in the lineage.

Keywords

Cryptic species, gall wasp, morphology, Silphium, superficial description impediment

Introduction

Cryptic species are those that cannot readily be distinguished on the basis of phenotypic variation alone (Struck et al. 2018); they have created challenges in myriad areas of the life sciences, especially in agro-economic systems (Andrews et al. 2020; Hansen et al. 2021; MacLeod et al. 2021). One such system of emerging significance is that of the genus Silphium L., a genus of composite herbs in the sunflower tribe (Asteraceae: Heliantheae) that is currently being investigated for use as biofuels, oilseeds, and additional economic purposes (Kowalski et al. 2013; Jasinskas et al. 2014; Peni et al. 2020; Vilela et al. 2020; von Cossel et al. 2020; Țîței et al. 2021). Despite recent interest in cultivating and domesticating various Silphium species, as well as their prominence in threatened tallgrass prairie habitats, their associated arthropod fauna remains poorly studied (Henderson and Sauer 2010; Buffington et al. 2017). A major component of Silphium communities is herb gall wasps of the genus Antistrophus Walsh, 1869 (Fig. 1), which includes a known case of cryptic species (Tooker et al. 2004).

Figure 1.

Examples of Silphium-galling Antistrophus wasps and their galls A adult female A. jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 B galls and larvae of A. jeanae in stem pith of S. perfoliatum L. C adult female A. silphii Gillette, 1891 D galls of A. silphii on terminal stem of S. integrifolium Michx E adult female A. laciniatus Gillette, 1891 F galls of A. laciniatus in disc flower of S. laciniatum L. adult gall wasps photographed by Antoine Guiguet. Galls photographed by Andrew R. Deans.

Six described species of Antistrophus induce galls in the disc flowers and stems of four Silphium species (Nastasi and Deans 2021). Perhaps the most intriguing Silphium gall wasps are three cryptic species composing the rufus species complex (A. jeanae Tooker and Hanks, A. meganae Tooker and Hanks, and A. rufus Gillette). These species are not only thought to be morphologically cryptic, but also induce galls that are inconspicuous and do not externally deform the host plant’s tissues (often referred to as “cryptic galls” in the literature; e.g., Ronquist and Liljeblad 2001); each species induces these galls within stems of their respective host species of the genus Silphium (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021). The complex was described by Tooker et al. (2004), who found each species to be distinct based on allozyme and ecological data, including use of host plant species (Tooker et al. 2004); A. jeanae is associated with S. perfoliatum L., A. meganae is associated with S. terebinthinaceum Jacq., and A. rufus is associated with S. laciniatum L. These species would be considered cryptic, or functionally so, based on the diagnostic morphological criteria which included averages of precise ratios of antennomere dimensions, lengths of dissected ovipositors, depths of galls within host stems, and masses of mature larvae (Tooker et al. 2004). These metrics are hard to replicate and do not fully diagnose the species, thus the original diagnoses are arguably insufficient to reliably arrive at a species identification without host plant data. While these are the only morphological diagnostic characters given by Tooker et al. (2004), the descriptions of these species, including Gillette’s 1891 description of A. rufus, are fairly limited in the number of morphological characters examined. Due to the brief original descriptions of species composing the A. rufus complex, it seems likely that this is a case of the so-called “superficial description impediment”, a taxonomic phenomenon in which species are not readily identifiable based on characterization in existing literature (Meier et al. 2021), rather than a true case of cryptic species.

The potential for a superficial description impediment in the A. rufus complex is supported by the minimal history of taxonomic investigation of herb gall wasps in North America; among the early diverging lineages of gall wasps are several tribes of non-oak herbaceous gallers (Aylacini sensu lato), but these remain more poorly understood than the species-rich oak gallers (Cynipini). While the herb gall wasp fauna of the Western Palearctic has been comparatively well studied (e.g., Nieves-Aldrey 1994; Nieves-Aldrey et al. 2008; Nieves-Aldrey 2012; Nieves-Aldrey 2022), those in North America remain poorly investigated. Eighteen valid native species are known (Nastasi and Deans 2021; Nastasi et al. 2024); only 14 published papers explore genus- or species-level taxonomy of these taxa, and many of these papers treat only a single species (Table 1). Of these works, only two (Nieves-Aldrey 1994; Tooker et al. 2004) have been published in the last 100 years. When combined with the known diagnostic characters for the rufus complex, the paucity of taxonomic work on this group further increases the likelihood of a taxonomic impediment rather than a true case of the cryptic species phenomenon.

Table 1.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Taxonomic treatments of North American herb gall wasps, 1869–present. Names later transferred to other genera marked with (*). Names later synonymized marked with (◊). Species that are non-native to North America (or questionably so) are excluded.

Author and year	Description of taxonomic work
Riley and Walsh 1869	Described Antistrophus pisum
Ashmead 1887	Described Aylax harringtoni*
Bassett 1890	Described Aylax tumidus* and Aylax podagrae*
Gillette 1891	Described Aylax bicolor◊ and five species of Antistrophus*
Brodie 1892	Described Aylax nabali*
Ashmead 1896	Described Aylax ambrosiaecola, A. cavicola*◊, A. mulgediicola*◊, and A. sonchicola**◊
Ashmead 1897	Described the genus Aulacidea for some species placed in Aylax
Beutenmüller 1908	Described Aylax chrysothamni*
Beutenmüller 1910a	Reviewed North American species of Aylax sensu lato
Beutenmüller 1910b	Reviewed North American species of Aulacidea
Kinsey 1920	Described Aulacidea abdita and A. annulata
McCracken and Egbert 1922	Described Aylax microseris*
Nieves-Aldrey 1994	Revised genera of “Aylacini” including those in North America
Tooker et al. 2004	Described Antistrophus rufus species complex including A. jeanae and A. meganae

In our analysis of the Antistrophus rufus complex, we included A. jeanae (gall inducer on S. perfoliatum), A. meganae (gall inducer on S. terebinthinaceum), and A. rufus (gall inducer on S. laciniatum) by sampling individuals reared from stems of these three Silphium host species. In the process we reveal in the stems of S. integrifolium the presence of an additional species that we newly describe, Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi sp. nov.; S. integrifolium is a new host plant for the rufus complex. We include in this analysis A. minor Gillette, 1891; we treat this species in the rufus complex based on its adherence to the diagnostic criteria for the rufus complex we propose here along with that of Tooker et al. (2004). Antistrophus minor induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls like those of A. rufus in the same host plant species (S. laciniatum). While some authors have discussed these species as potential synonyms (e.g., Beutenmüller 1910a), no nomenclatural actions have been published. Antistrophus minor was excluded from Tooker et al.’s (2004) description of the A. rufus complex, but because its status as a valid species remained unclear, we opted to treat A. minor here.

Methods

Gall collection and rearing

In late autumn and winter of 2020, 2021, and 2022, we collected entire, senesced stems of Silphium integrifolium, S. laciniatum, S. perfoliatum, and S. terebinthinaceum from sites in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Ohio (details below). We identified plants in the field based on external morphology, as the Silphium species we studied are easily diagnosable in our sampling region by characters of the leaves and stems that are observable even in senescent plants (e.g., Brock and Weakley 2020). At each site, we confirmed via stem dissection that externally inconspicuous stem galls were present in each host plant species. We then collected additional stems, cut them into evenly sized pieces, labeled them, and stored them in plastic zip bags, which we aerated by poking holes in them using insect pins. We returned stems to lab facilities at The Pennsylvania State University (University Park, Pennsylvania, USA), where we stored bagged stem samples in a barn (without climate controls) to expose occupants to natural environmental conditions. From April through September, we checked stems every two to three days for emerging insects, which we collected into vials containing ethanol and stored at -20 °C. For morphological study, we air-dried and mounted selected individuals. Nastasi (2023) provides further recommendations for rearing cynipid galls on herbaceous plants.

Museum collection material

We examined specimens from the following collections:

AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA

INHS Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL, USA

PSUC Frost Entomological Museum, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

USNM National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA

WIRC Wisconsin Insect Research Collection, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

Using Darwin Core biodiversity data standards (Wieczorek et al. 2012), we digitized label data of all specimens that we examined. Digitized specimen data for all individuals we examined, including plant sample numbers and exact emergence dates for newly reared material, are available in Suppl. material 1: table 1.

Morphological character selection, description, and examination

To assess morphological boundaries of species belonging to the rufus complex, we selected 50 morphological characters (Suppl. material 1: table 2) from contemporary works on taxonomy of herb gall wasps (i.e., Nieves-Aldrey 1994; Tooker et al. 2004; Melika 2006; Ronquist et al. 2015; Azmaz and Katilmiş 2020; Buffington et al. 2020; Nieves-Aldrey 2022; Tavakoli et al. 2022). We selected characters based on perceived potential for species-level diagnosis as well as ubiquity across the taxonomic treatments that we considered. We matched anatomical terms for adult wasps to concepts in the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology (Yoder et al. 2010) and provide a URI table (see Seltmann et al. 2012) outlining morphological terminology (Suppl. material 1: table 3). Our terminology relating to cuticular surface sculpture follows Harris (1979). We used the following additional abbreviation that is absent from the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology:

Table 2.

Download as

CSV

XLSX

Diagnostic characters of the Antistrophus rufus complex. Morphological data for species outside the A. rufus complex are from ongoing revisionary work on Aulacideini (Nastasi et al., unpublished data). Biological data are from Nastasi and Deans (2021). * = Gall and host unconfirmed for A. bicolor Gillette, 1891; see Nastasi and Deans (2021). † = Coloration of fresh material unknown; based on description by Beutenmüller (1908).

Antistrophus species	Head and mesosoma coloration	Facial radiating striae	Malar space: eye	F2:F1 length	Mesopleuron sculpture	Notauli	Fore wing marginal setae (♀)	Gall morphotype and host plant
rufus complex (jeanae, laurenae, meganae, minor, & rufus)	Mostly reddish-brown	Complete, reaching eye (Fig. 3A)	Eye longer (Fig. 3A)	F2 much longer (e.g., Fig. 4B)	Reticulate with fine intermediate striae (Fig. 3B)	Incomplete, indistinct in anterior third (Fig. 3C)	Absent (Fig. 3D)	Inconspicuous, in stems of Silphium (e.g., Fig. 4F)
bicolor, laciniatus, & silphii	Entirely black	Complete	Eye longer	F2 subequal to F1	Reticulate with fine intermediate striae	Complete, distinct across mesoscutum length	Absent	Conspicuous, on stems or flowers of Silphium*
chrysothamni	Black to reddish-brown†	Absent	Eye longer	F2 much longer	Strongly striate with interspaces reticulate	Incomplete, distinct only in posterior third	Absent	Conspicuous, apparently on Chrysothamnus
microseris	Entirely black	Complete	Eye longer	F2 much longer	Reticulate with fine intermediate striae	Incomplete, distinct only in posterior third	Present	Conspicuous, on stems of Microseris
pisum	Mostly reddish-brown	Incomplete, reaching halfway to eye	Malar space longer	F2 much longer	Entirely reticulate	Incomplete, distinct only in posterior third	Absent	Conspicuous, on stems of Lygodesmia

DLO (diameter of lateral ocellus) for the largest possible diameter of either lateral ocellus.

We evaluated each character for five females and five males of each species (“primary morphological exemplars;” Suppl. material 1: table 1); we putatively identified these individuals based on the associated host plant species and characters presented in the original descriptions and scored the primary type and some secondary types for each species. We selected specimens based on geographic origin and used material from various counties across four states to ensure that we accounted for different populations and intraspecies variability. In addition to “target” specimens that we used in the primary morphological analysis, we examined an additional 20 females and 20 males of each species (“secondary morphological exemplars;” Suppl. material 1: table 1) to confirm the characters given in descriptions and obtain replicate measurements of body length for each species. We provide raw morphological data (Suppl. material 1: table 4), and a summary of characters, states, and corresponding diagnostic utility (Suppl. material 1: table 5). We report morphological characters in taxon treatments as character-state pairs matching the findings of the morphological “test”.

We performed morphological observations and measurements of mounted specimens with an Olympus SZX16 stereo microscope (Olympus Life Science, Tokyo, Japan) fitted with an optical micrometer. We measured antennae at a resolution of 0.005 (1/200) millimeters using 10× magnification in combination with the 2× objective. Other measurements were taken at an appropriate magnification using the 1× objective. We used a gooseneck illuminator fitted with mylar strips to diffuse light, which was especially helpful for discerning minute patterns involving sculpture and other aspects of the cuticular surface.

Terms relating to gall phenotypes follow Deans et al. (2023).

Imaging and drawings

We took images of point-mounted adult wasps using a Macroscopic Solutions ‘microkit’ (Tolland, CT) imaging system. Additional images were captured from mounted wasps using Olympus SZX16 microscope (Olympus Life Science, Tokyo, Japan). We stacked images using Zerene Stacker LLC (Richland, WA), edited them using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Inc.), and prepared plates using Adobe Illustrator (Adobe Inc.).

Nomenclature of host plants

For taxonomy of Silphium host plants we follow Brock and Weakley (2020). While taxonomy of Silphium is widely considered unsettled, the four species considered here (Silphium integrifolium, S. laciniatum, S. perfoliatum, and S. terebinthinaceum) are robust in the geographic area that we considered (M. Brock, in litt.).

Distribution of gall wasps and host plants

We generated maps showing confirmed and potential distribution of each gall wasp species using MapChart (figures are licensed via CC BY-SA 4.0). We defined potential distribution of each gall wasp species as the known native range of its host plant; distribution of Silphium species follows Kartesz (2015).

Molecular phylogenetics

We sequenced and analyzed the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene to test the species concepts suggested by our morphological analysis and host plant data. We sequenced the COI gene of three individuals of each species of the Antistrophus rufus complex. We also sequenced single specimens of three additional Antistrophus species: A. silphii Gillette, 1891 reared from a terminal stem gall on Silphium integrifolium Michx. (Fig. 1D), A. laciniatus Gillette, 1891 reared from a flower gall on Silphium laciniatum (Fig. 1F), and A. microseris (McCracken & Egbert, 1922) reared from a stem gall on Microseris douglasii (DC.) Sch.Bip. We also included a single sequence of Isocolus leuzeae Nieves-Aldrey, 2003 from GenBank (DQ012643) to serve as outgroups to the A. rufus complex.

We performed DNA extraction using an E.Z.N.A. Microelute Genomic DNA Kit (Omega Biotek Inc., Norcross, Georgia, USA) following kit protocols and eluting in 30 µL of buffer (15 µL eluted in two steps). We extracted DNA from wasps either entirely destructively, by grinding the entire body, or minimally destructively, by incubating the entire insect. We amplified the COI gene using primer pairs LEPR and LEPF (Hebert et al. 2004) or LCO1490 and HCO2198 (Folmer et al. 1994), following Hebert et al.’s PCR conditions for LEP primers and following those of Pang et al. (2020) for Folmer primers. Sequencing of PCR products was performed using The Huck Institute’s Genomics Core Facility (The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA). We edited and aligned sequence data using Geneious (Biomatters Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand, http://www.geneious.com/) using the Geneious alignment function. Aligned sequence ends were trimmed to exclude primer sequences. We calculated genetic distances in Geneious using the Tamura-Nei distance model and 1,000 bootstrap replications. We determined the number of variable and parsimony informative sites in our alignment using AMAS v1.0 (Borowiec, 2016).

We estimated phylogenetic relationships using MrBayes v3.2.7a (Ronquist et al. 2012) using the following parameters: ngen=15000000; samplefreq=1000; nchains=4; nruns=3. We used two partitions for the first+second and third codon positions, respectively, and selected nucleotide substitution models for the two partitions using PartitionFinder 2 (Lanfear et al. 2017) using a greedy search (Lanfear et al. 2012) and specifying for models available in MrBayes; PartitionFinder 2 recommended GTR+G for the first+second positions and HKY+G for the third position. We specified I. leuzeae as the outgroup and used a burnin value of 3750000 corresponding to 25% of samples. We visualized our consensus tree using FigTree v1.4.4 (https://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/).

All new sequences generated for this study were deposited in GenBank, accessions PP739172–PP739189. We provide collection data for sequenced specimens (Suppl. material 1: table 6) and DNA barcode divergence data (Suppl. material 1: table 7). We deposited DNA vouchers and additional material from gall samples and/or rearing events at PSUC.

Identification of additional museum material

After developing diagnostic characters for each studied species of Antistrophus, we identified additional material of the A. rufus species complex from collections we referenced, with the goal of checking previous determinations of identified specimens and identifying undetermined specimens for the first time.

Results

Morphological evaluation

Of the 50 characters that we assessed, 13 had utility as diagnostic characters for at least one species of the rufus complex. Two of the diagnostic characters, both of which concerned dimensions of the first two flagellomeres, were used previously by Tooker et al. (2004) in their treatment of the complex; our observations of those characters were generally consistent with those of Tooker et al. (2004).

While the specimens that we reared from S. laciniatum, S. perfoliatum, and S. terebinthinaceum all matched existing species concepts, the wasps associated with S. integrifolium appeared to compose an independent species, and our morphological observations suggest significant differences between these individuals and those of the described members of the rufus complex. Based on these differences, and the results of our molecular phylogenetic analysis, we describe below the species associated with S. integrifolium as Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov.

Molecular phylogenetics

Our trimmed alignment was 623 bp in length and contained 216 variable sites and 187 parsimony informative sites. Our Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of the 19 sequences (Fig. 2) provided clear evidence of distinct species matching those found by our morphological data, as each of the species had very short branch lengths within species (maximum COI divergence of 1.4% in A. meganae) and very long branch lengths between them. COI species divergences between the closest species pair (A. meganae and A. minor) averaged 10.6% (Suppl. material 1: table 7), well beyond the often contested 2% ‘suggestion’ for distinguishing species. Each species was supported by a posterior probability of 1, and A. laurenae and A. jeanae were strongly supported as sister species, but the remainder of the between-species relationships are less robust. Each recognized species has a distinct host plant except for A. rufus and A. minor, which are both associated with Silphium laciniatum but were not supported as sister species. Our analysis also retrieved the Antistrophus rufus complex as monophyletic within the sampled species of Antistrophus with a posterior probability of 1.

Figure 2.

Bayesian phylogenetic tree of DNA barcodes for the Antistrophus rufus complex. Support values shown only for nodes with posterior probability <1. Host plant clade associations are indicated by colored boxes (Silphium sect. Silphium in orange and S. sect. Composita in green) A adult female Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 B adult female Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891.

Taxonomy of the Antistrophus rufus species complex

Antistrophus rufus species complex

Diagnosis. Overall, the A. rufus complex is best diagnosed by the following combination of characters: head and mesosoma mostly reddish-brown in color (Figs 3A–D); facial radiating striae complete (Fig. 3A); compound eye longer than malar space in anterior view (Fig. 3A); F2 much longer than F1 (e.g., Fig. 4B); mesopleuron sculpture reticulate with fine intermediate striae (Fig. 3B); notauli incomplete, indistinct in anterior third of mesoscutum (Fig. 3C); female fore wing without apparent marginal setae (Fig. 3D); galls inconspicuous, induced in stems of Silphium species (e.g., Fig. 4F). Comparative diagnostic characters for the Antistrophus rufus species complex relative to other Antistrophus are presented in Fig. 3 and Table 2 below.

Figure 3.

Diagnostic characters of the Antistrophus rufus complex A head, anterior view, A. meganae female (PSUC_FEM_247320); frs = facial radiating striae B mesopleuron, lateral view, A. laurenae female (PSUC_FEM_248174) C mesoscutum, dorsal view, A. rufus female (PSUC_FEM_253129); not = notauli; arrow indicates end of distinct portion D fore wing, A. minor female (PSUC_FEM_253176).

Figure 4.

Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 A female lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248169) B female proximal antennomeres (PSUC_FEM_248395) C female dorsal head (PSUC_FEM_247240) D female dorsal mesosoma (PSUC_FEM_247240) E female mesoscutum (PSUC_FEM_247240); not = notaulus F female dorsal scutellum (PSUC_FEM_247240); scf = mesoscutellar fovea G male lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248416) H gallss and larvae of A. jeanae in a stem of Silphium perfoliatum L.

Remarks. The Antistrophus rufus complex includes all species of Antistrophus known to induce inconspicuous galls in stems of Silphium species. While other species of Antistrophus induce galls on Silphium, they induce perceptible galls on the apical stems or in the flowerheads (Gillette 1891; Nastasi and Deans 2021) and are generally distinct morphologically (Table 2). Other species of Antistrophus induce galls on different host genera. A complete revision of Antistrophus and other North American Aulacideini is being undertaken by the authors (Nastasi et al., unpublished data).

Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Fig. 4

Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 in Tooker et al. 2004: 132. ♀, ♂ (type locality: Buckley Railroad Prairie, Iroquois Co., Illinois, USA).

Material examined

Holotype (deposited at INHS). USA • ♀; Illinois, Iroquois County, Buckley Railroad Prairie; 40°34.88'N, 88°02.70'W; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium perfoliatum in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 25845.

Paratypes (14 ♀ and 8 ♂). Deposited at INHS: USA • 5 ♀ and 2 ♂; same data as for holotype; INHS Insect Collection 52846–52852 • 4 ♀ and 3 ♂; Illinois, Ford County, Paxton Railroad Prairie; 40°26.17'N, 88°06.36'W; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 52853–52859.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; same data as for holotype; USNMENT 01790168–01790170 • 3 ♀ and 2 ♂; Illinois, Ford County, Paxton Railroad Prairie; 40°26.17'N, 88°06.36'W; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in June 2000; USNMENT 00961127; 01790165–01790167; 01790171.

Other material

(10 ♀ and 17 ♂) . Deposited at PSUC: USA • 3 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, Champaign County, Mahomet, Buffalo Trace Prairie; 40.208, -88.411; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248395; 248398; 248413; 248423 • 4 ♀ and 3 ♂; Indiana, Parke County; 39.661, -87.371; galled plant material collected 12 Nov 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248169–248170; 248396–248397; 248401–248403 • 2 ♀ and 3 ♂; Iowa, Winneshiek County, Plymouth Rock Prairie; 43.437, -92.005; galled plant material collected 19 Nov 2020; MJ Hatfield leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in May 2021; PSUC_FEM_248406; 248416; 248418; 248420; 248422.

Deposited at WIRC: 4 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Anthony Branch F.A.; 42.896072, -89.340018; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171031–00171032; 00171035–00171036 • 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Badger Pr. Park - North; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171041; 00171043 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, E-way at Mooreland; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171047 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Iowa County, Noll Valley; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170518 • 3 ♂; Wisconsin, Iowa County, Pr. Grove Rd at stream; galled plant material collected 5 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium perfoliatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171027–00171029.

Diagnosis

A. jeanae is most similar to A. laurenae sp. nov. but is best distinguished by the dimensions of F2 in females, which in A. jeanae is 3.8× as long as wide (Fig. 4B) but 3.3× as long as wide in A. laurenae (Fig. 5B). The sculpture of the mesoscutellar disc (Fig. 4F) is also useful; the mesoscutellar disc is more or less rugose-reticulate throughout in A. jeanae but only has rugose-reticulate sculpture toward the outer margins in A. laurenae.

Figure 5.

Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov. A paratype female lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248173) B holotype female proximal antennomeres (PSUC_FEM_248174) C holotype female dorsal head (PSUC_FEM_248174) D holotype female dorsal mesosoma E holotype female dorsal mesoscutum; not = notaulus G holotype female dorsal scutellum; scf = mesoscutellar fovea. Paratype male lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248334) H galls and larva of A. laurenae in a stem of Silphium integrifolium Michx.

Description

Female (Fig. 4A)–Body length: 1.9–3.2 mm (x̄ = 2.7 mm; n = 25; holotype = 2.6 mm). Color: Antenna color: red brown throughout, at most slightly darker distally than proximally. Head color: vertex and occiput dark red brown, mandibles red brown basally to darker red brown apically, rest of head red brown throughout. Mesosoma color: pronotum and propodeum red brown laterally to dark red brown medially, mesoscutum dark red brown, scutellum dark red brown, and mesopleuron dark red brown dorsally and ventrally but red brown medially. Wing membrane color: hyaline throughout. Wing vein color: light brown. Leg color: red brown throughout, except for apical tarsomere which is conspicuously darker. Metasoma color: red brown to dark red brown. Antennae (Fig. 4B): Antennomere count: 13. F1 length: 2.4× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.8× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.5. Placodeal sensilla on F2: absent; sensilla present only on F3 and following antennomeres. Head (Fig. 4C): Upper frons sculpture: reticulate. Gena posterolateral projection in anterior view: distinctly projecting past compound eyes. Facial radiating striae: distinct and complete, reaching compound eyes. Supraclypeal area sculpture: reticulate. Supraclypeal area projection: slightly projecting. OOL vs POL: OOL distinctly longer. OOL vs LOL: OOL greater than twice LOL. POL vs LOL: POL greater than twice LOL. LOL vs DLO: LOL longer. Vertex sculpture: reticulate throughout. Clypeus sculpture: reticulate. Mesosoma (Figs 4D–F): Pronotum pilosity: densely pilose along anterior margin and with only sparse setae elsewhere. Pronotum excluding pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron excluding speculum sculpture: reticulate with fine intermediate striae. Speculum sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron pilosity: ventral margin and mesopleural triangle densely pilose and bare elsewhere. Mesoscutum pilosity: sparsely pilose. Mesoscutum sculpture: reticulate. Apparent length of anterior parallel lines: reaching one third across mesoscutum. Morphology of anterior parallel lines: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Apparent length of parapsidal grooves: reaching halfway across mesoscutum. Morphology of parapsidal grooves: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Morphology of median mesoscutal impression: apparent as a shallow impression extending across most of mesoscutum. Notauli completeness: incomplete, distinct posteriorly to indistinct in anterior third. Morphology of notauli: appearing as wide indentations with sloping edges throughout distinct portions. Metapleural sulcus: meeting posterior mesopleuron at about one third of its height. Lateral propodeal carinae: distinct and subparallel. Metapleuron sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar foveae distinction: distinct, relatively deep anteriorly to shallower and inconspicuously delimited posteriorly. Mesoscutellar foveae sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar disc sculpture: usually rugose-reticulate throughout; primarily reticulate, but usually with distinct rugose sculpture apparent throughout most of mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae length: reaching about one third across mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae shape: subquadrate, about as wide as long, separated by a narrow linear carina. Mesoscutellar disc shape: subcircular, about as wide as long. Wings: Marginal cell length: 3.2× as long as wide. Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: absent. Metasoma: Punctation of metasomal terga: T3 punctate only in posterior third and with T4 and following punctate throughout.

Male (Fig. 4G)–Same as female except for the following: Body length: 1.8–2.6 mm (x̄ = 2.1 mm; n = 25). Antennae: Antennomere count: 14. F1 length: 2.4× as long as wide. F2 length: 2.9× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.4. Placodeal sensilla on F2: present. Wings: Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: present. Metasoma: Metasoma size: conspicuously smaller than in female.

Biology

A. jeanae induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium perfoliatum (Fig. 4H) (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021).

Distribution

Tooker et al. (2004) reported this species only from several prairie sites in Illinois (USA). Nastasi and Deans (2021) did not report additional localities. However, specimens we examined revealed records from three additional state records: Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin. A verifiable iNaturalist observation (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/114414672) also records this species from Ohio; we have since examined adult gall wasps reared from the plant material from the same site, which confirmed their suspected identity (in litt.). Lastly, a specimen identified during this study (USNMENT 01822302; see complete specimen data in Suppl. material 1: table 1) confirms the occurrence of this species in Missouri (Columbia, Boone County) (see discussion). Known and potential distribution are summarized in Fig. 9.

Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov.

https://zoobank.org/3EA96644-BC93-4B03-908C-C62BEAABDCDF

Fig. 5

Material examined

Holotype (deposited at PSUC). USA • ♀; Illinois, Ford and Iroquois Counties, Paxton Railroad Prairie; 40.359, -88.106; galled plant material collected 11 November 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248174.

Paratypes (24 ♀ and 25 ♂). Deposited at PSUC: USA • 2 ♂; same data as for holotype; PSUC_FEM_248338–248339 • 1 ♀ and 4 ♂; Illinois, Iroquois County, Loda Cemetery Prairie; 40.528, -88.074; galled plant material collected 10 November 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248173 • 5 ♀ and 4 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; galled plant material collected 11 November 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248178; 248325–248327; 248329–248330; 248333; 248336 • 2 ♀ and 2 ♂; Iowa, Story County, Grant, intersection of I-35 and E 13^th St. prairie restoration; galled plant material collected 28 November 2020; MJ Hatfield leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248176; 248331; 248334; 248337.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 1 ♀; Illinois, McLean County, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; galled plant material collected 11 November 2020; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248332 • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; same data as for holotype; PSUC_FEM_248175; 248335; 248340.

Deposited at WIRC: 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Iowa, Delaware County, Dyersville West; 42.48564, -91.15425; galled plant material collected 2 May 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171299–00171301 • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Iowa, Delaware County, Dyersville West Prairie; 42.47330, -91.138372; galled plant material collected 2 May 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171267–00171268; 00171283 • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; Iowa, Marshall County, Twinkle Hill Restoration; 42.064396, -92.854943; galled plant material collected 2 May 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171284; 00171306–00171307 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Columbia County, Goose Pond Jill’s Pr.; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171314 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Anthony Branch F.A.; 42.896072, -89.340018; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171322 • 2 ♀ and 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Badger Pr. Park - North; 42.896072, -89.340018; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170523; 00170837; 00171315; 00171331 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Dane County, Black Earth Prairie; 43.140146, -89.773011; galled plant material collected 5 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170838 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, E-way at Mooreland; 43.030588, -89.349114; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170524; 00171329 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Festge Roadside; 43.118267, -89.683665; galled plant material collected 18 Apr 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171227; 00171289 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Garfoot Road; galled plant material collected 5 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00171337 • 2 ♀ and 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Gov Nelson 1997; 43.137321, -89.437257; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170839; 00171303; 00171330; 00171341 • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, TNC Waubesa Wetland; galled plant material collected 22 Nov 2008; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171271; 00171274; 00171286 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Iowa County, TNC/Lease; 42.97357, -89.88900; galled plant material collected 17 Apr 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171287 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Iowa County, Underwood Prairie; galled plant material collected 9 May 2009; DNR Study SSGB leg.; reared from stems of Silphium integrifolium, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00171298.

Diagnosis

See diagnosis to Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004.

Description

Female (Fig. 5A)–Body length: 1.8–2.6 mm (x̄ = 2.2 mm; n = 25; holotype = 2.6 mm). Color: Antenna color: red brown throughout, at most slightly darker distally than proximally. Head color: vertex and occiput dark red brown, mandibles red brown basally to darker red brown apically, rest of head red brown throughout. Mesosoma color: pronotum and propodeum red brown laterally to dark red brown medially, mesoscutum dark red brown, scutellum dark red brown, and mesopleuron dark red brown dorsally and ventrally but red brown medially. Wing membrane color: hyaline throughout. Wing vein color: light brown. Leg color: red brown throughout, except for apical tarsomere which is conspicuously darker. Metasoma color: red brown to dark red brown. Antennae (Fig. 5B): Antennomere count: 13. F1 length: 2.2× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.3× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.4. Placodeal sensilla on F2: absent; sensilla present only on F3 and following antennomeres. Head (Fig. 5C): Upper frons sculpture: reticulate. Gena posterolateral projection in anterior view: distinctly projecting past compound eyes. Facial radiating striae: distinct and complete, reaching compound eyes. Supraclypeal area sculpture: reticulate. Supraclypeal area projection: slightly projecting. OOL vs POL: OOL distinctly longer. OOL vs LOL: OOL greater than twice LOL. POL vs LOL: POL greater than twice LOL. LOL vs DLO: LOL longer. Vertex sculpture: reticulate throughout. Clypeus sculpture: reticulate. Mesosoma (Figs 5D–F): Pronotum pilosity: densely pilose along anterior margin and with only sparse setae elsewhere. Pronotum excluding pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron excluding speculum sculpture: reticulate with fine intermediate striae. Speculum sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron pilosity: ventral margin and mesopleural triangle densely pilose and bare elsewhere. Mesoscutum pilosity: sparsely pilose. Mesoscutum sculpture: reticulate. Apparent length of anterior parallel lines: reaching one third across mesoscutum. Morphology of anterior parallel lines: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Apparent length of parapsidal grooves: reaching halfway across mesoscutum. Morphology of parapsidal grooves: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Morphology of median mesoscutal impression: apparent as a shallow impression extending across most of mesoscutum. Notauli completeness: incomplete, distinct posteriorly to indistinct in anterior third. Morphology of notauli: appearing as wide indentations with sloping edges throughout distinct portions. Metapleural sulcus: meeting posterior mesopleuron at about one third of its height. Lateral propodeal carinae: distinct and subparallel. Metapleuron sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar foveae distinction: distinct, relatively deep anteriorly to shallower and inconspicuously delimited posteriorly. Mesoscutellar foveae sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar disc sculpture: rugose-reticulate, primarily reticulate, but with distinct rugose-reticulate sculpture seemingly restricted to outer margins. Mesoscutellar foveae length: long, reaching about one third across mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae shape: subquadrate, about as wide as long, separated by a narrow linear carina. Mesoscutellar disc shape: subcircular, about as wide as long. Wings: Marginal cell length: 3.1× as long as wide. Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: absent. Metasoma: Punctation of metasomal terga: T3 punctate only in posterior third and with T4 and following punctate throughout.

Male (Fig. 5G)–Same as female except for the following: Body length: 1.3–2.1 mm (x̄ = 1.8; n = 25). Antennae: Antennomere count: 14. F1 length: 2.3× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.2× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.5. Placodeal sensilla on F2: present. Wings: Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: present. Metasoma: Metasoma size: conspicuously smaller than in female.

Etymology

Named for Lauren Ahlert, a biology teacher at Wayne Valley High School in Wayne, New Jersey, USA, who has served as a tremendous source of inspiration and passion for the author of this species.

Biology

Antistrophus laurenae induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium integrifolium (Fig. 5H).

Distribution

Material examined in this study reveals that this species occurs in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin (USA; see Suppl. material 1: table 1). A verified iNaturalist record (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/136446787) also suggests that this species occurs in Mississippi. Known and potential distribution are summarized in Fig. 9.

Antistrophus meganae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Fig. 6

Antistrophus meganae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 in Tooker et al. 2004: 132. ♀, ♂ (type locality: East St. Joseph Railroad Prairie, Iroquois Co., Illinois, USA).

Material examined

Holotype (deposited at INHS). USA • ♀; Illinois, Champaign County, St. Joseph, roadside prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 52830.

Paratypes (14 ♀ and 8 ♂). Deposited at INHS: USA • 8 ♀ and 4 ♂; same data as for holotype; INHS Insect Collection 52831–52837 • 4 ♀ and 3 ♂; Illinois, Ford County, Paxton, Paxton Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 52838–52844.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, Ford County, Paxton, Paxton Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2000; USNMENT 01790188–01790190.

Other material

(10 ♀ and 17 ♂) . Deposited at PSUC: USA • 1 ♀; Illinois, Champaign County, St. Joseph, roadside prairie; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; 40.113, -88.064; galled plant material collected 10 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248429 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248165–248166.

Deposited at WIRC: USA • 2 ♀; Wisconsin, Columbia County, Mass Rd.; galled plant material collected Fall 2008; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00171156; 00171166 • 2 ♀ and 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Co A and Oak Ridge (Anthony Branch F.A.); 42.892454, -89.320011; galled plant material collected 15 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00170514; 00171140; 00171154–00171155 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Kelly Road and RR, roadside; galled plant material collected Fall 2008; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in July 2009; WIRC 00170513 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Malone Road; galled plant material collected 17 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00171112 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Noll Valley; galled plant material collected 5 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2012; WIRC 00171114 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Prairie Ridge City Park; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00171124 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Sugar Ridge Savanna; galled plant material collected 20 Mar 2012; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00171122; 00171134 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, TNC Waubesa Wetland; galled plant material collected 22 Nov 2008; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00170515 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Bluejoint Prairie; 43.163398, -88.938815; galled plant material collected 16 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in July 2009; WIRC 00170517 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Bluejoint Prairie; 43.163398, -88.938815; galled plant material collected 16 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00170512 • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Jefferson County, Cold Spring Prairie; 42.872556, -88.770194; galled plant material collected 15 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00171109; 00171137; 00171141 • 3 ♂; Wisconsin, Walworth County, Skoponong Prairie; 42.829155, -88.620586; galled plant material collected 4 Oct 2011; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in May or June 2012; WIRC 00170749; 00171113; 00171120 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Walworth County, Young Pr. East Annex; 42.839419, -88.63002; galled plant material collected 16 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00170750 • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Winnebago County, Oshkosh-Larsen Trl mid (B); 44.13912, -88.624272; galled plant material collected 10 Oct 2011; reared from stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum, emerging in June 2012; WIRC 00171115–00171116; 00171118.

Diagnosis

A. meganae is the only species of the rufus complex in which the mesoscutellar foveae (Fig. 6F) are long and ovate, reaching nearly halfway across the mesoscutellar disc. A. meganae also differs from most other members of the rufus complex by the POL (Fig. 6C), which is longer than the OOL in A. meganae and A. minor but shorter than the OOL in the other species.

Figure 6.

Antistrophus meganae Tooker & Hanks, 2004 A female lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248165) B female proximal antennomeres (PSUC_FEM_247325) C female dorsal head (PSUC_FEM_247325) D female dorsal mesosoma (PSUC_FEM_247230) E female dorsal mesoscutum (PSUC_FEM_247230); not = notaulus F female dorsal scutellum (PSUC_FEM_247230); scf = mesoscutellar fovea G male lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248498) H gallss and larvae of A. meganae in a stem of Silphium terebinthinaceum Jacq.

Description

Female (Fig. 6A)–Body length: 1.8–3.2 mm (x̄ = 2.5 mm; n = 25; holotype = 2.3 mm). Color: Antenna color: red brown throughout, at most slightly darker distally than proximally. Head color: vertex and occiput dark red brown, mandibles red brown basally to darker red brown apically, rest of head red brown throughout. Mesosoma color: pronotum and propodeum red brown laterally to dark red brown medially, mesoscutum dark red brown with distinct posterolateral red brown spots, scutellum dark red brown, and mesopleuron dark red brown dorsally and ventrally but red brown medially. Wing membrane color: hyaline throughout. Wing vein color: light brown. Leg color: red brown throughout, except for apical tarsomere which is conspicuously darker. Metasoma color: red brown to dark red brown. Antennae (Fig. 6B): Antennomere count: 13. F1 length: 2.6× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.6× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.4. Placodeal sensilla on F2: absent; sensilla present only on F3 and following antennomeres. Head (Fig. 6C): Upper frons sculpture: reticulate. Gena posterolateral projection in anterior view: distinctly projecting past compound eyes. Facial radiating striae: distinct and complete, reaching compound eyes. Supraclypeal area sculpture: reticulate. Supraclypeal area projection: slightly projecting. OOL vs POL: POL distinctly longer. OOL vs LOL: OOL less than twice LOL. POL vs LOL: POL twice LOL. LOL vs DLO: LOL longer. Vertex sculpture: reticulate throughout. Clypeus sculpture: reticulate. Mesosoma (Figs 6D–F): Pronotum pilosity: densely pilose along anterior margin and with only sparse setae elsewhere. Pronotum excluding pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron excluding speculum sculpture: reticulate with fine intermediate striae. Speculum sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron pilosity: ventral margin and mesopleural triangle densely pilose and bare elsewhere. Mesoscutum pilosity: sparsely pilose. Mesoscutum sculpture: reticulate. Apparent length of anterior parallel lines: reaching one third across mesoscutum. Morphology of anterior parallel lines: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Apparent length of parapsidal grooves: reaching halfway across mesoscutum. Morphology of parapsidal grooves: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Morphology of median mesoscutal impression: apparent as a shallow impression extending across most of mesoscutum. Notauli completeness: incomplete, distinct posteriorly to indistinct in anterior third. Morphology of notauli: appearing as wide indentations with sloping edges throughout distinct portions. Metapleural sulcus: meeting posterior mesopleuron at about one third of its height. Lateral propodeal carinae: distinct and subparallel. Metapleuron sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar foveae distinction: distinct, relatively deep anteriorly to shallower and inconspicuously delimited posteriorly. Mesoscutellar foveae sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar disc sculpture: rugose-reticulate, primarily reticulate, but with distinct rugose-reticulate sculpture seemingly restricted to outer margins. Mesoscutellar foveae length: long, reaching nearly halfway across mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae shape: ovate, slightly longer than wide, separated by a subtriangular carina slightly wider posteriorly than anteriorly. Mesoscutellar disc shape: subcircular, about as wide as long. Wings: Marginal cell length: 3.3× as long as wide. Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: absent. Metasoma: Punctation of metasomal terga: T3 punctate only in posterior third and with T4 and following punctate throughout.

Male (Fig. 6G)–Same as female except for the following: Body length: 1.3–2.5 mm (x̄ = 2.1 mm; n = 25). Antennae: Antennomere count: 14. F1 length: 2.5× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.0× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.4 (as in female). Placodeal sensilla on F2: present. Wings: Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: present. Metasoma: Metasoma size: conspicuously smaller than in female.

Biology

Antistrophus meganae induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium terebinthinaceum (Fig. 6H) (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021).

Distribution

Tooker et al. (2004) reported this species only from several prairie sites in Illinois (USA). Nastasi and Deans (2021) did not report additional localities; however, the specimens we examined revealed novel records from Wisconsin (Suppl. material 1: table 1). We also sequenced DNA barcodes for individuals from Ohio (Suppl. material 1: table 6), and a series of specimens identified using the key represents a new state record from Michigan (see Discussion; Suppl. material 1: table 1). Known and potential distribution are summarized in Fig. 9.

Antistrophus minor Gillette, 1891

Fig. 7

Antistrophus minor Gillette, 1891: 195. ♀, ♂ (type locality: unknown location in Illinois, USA).

Aulax gillettei (Gillette, 1891): Kieffer 1902: 93.

Material examined

Lectotype (deposited at INHS; designated by Frison [1927]). USA • ♀; Illinois; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum; record number 5500; INHS Insect Collection 212949.

Lectoallotype (deposited at INHS; designated by Frison [1927]). USA • ♂; same data as lectotype; INHS Insect Collection 212950.

Other material

(24 ♀ and 24 ♂) . Deposited at PSUC: USA • 3 ♀; Illinois, Champaign County, Gifford, Shortline Railroad Prairie; 40.305, -87.999; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 10–11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248257; 253063; 253067 • 2 ♀; Illinois, Iroquois County, Loda, Loda Cemetery Prairie; 40.528, -88.074; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 10 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248273; 253060 • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248278; 248283; 248288; 248303 • 3 ♀ and 3 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; LF Nastasi and AR Casadei leg.; galled plant material collected 16 Oct 2021; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2022; PSUC_FEM_253166–253168; 253170; 253180; 253192 • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; Iowa, Story County, Grant, Interstate 35 and E 13^th St prairie restoration; MJ Hatfield leg.; galled plant material collected 30 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248265; 248291; 248295 • 1 ♂; Iowa, Winneshiek County, Decorah Community Prairie; MJ Hatfield leg.; galled plant material collected 18 Apr 2022; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2022; PSUC_FEM_253229 • 3 ♀ and 2 ♂; Iowa, Winneshiek County, Plymouth Rock Prairie; 43.438, -92.006; MJ Hatfield leg.; galled plant material collected 17 Apr 2016; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2016; PSUC_FEM_253085; 253088; 253089; 253090; 253094.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 1 ♀; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248286 • 1 ♀; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248303 • 3 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; LF Nastasi and AR Casadei leg.; galled plant material collected 16 Oct 2021; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2022; PSUC_FEM_253190; 253191; 253194 • 1 ♀; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; LF Nastasi and AR Casadei leg.; galled plant material collected 16 Oct 2021; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2022; PSUC_FEM_253165.

Deposited at WIRC: USA • 1 ♀; Iowa, Blackhawk County, Hudson Railroad Prairie; 42.436349, -92.427034; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 2 May 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00170819 • 1 ♀; Iowa, Linn County, Walford 2; 41.883014, -91.825962; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 3 May 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00170772 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Columbia County, Goose Pd. Sue Ames; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected Fall 2008; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in July 2009; WIRC 00170816 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Columbia County, Hopkins Restoration; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected Fall 2008; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in July 2009; WIRC 00170661 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Badger Pr. Park North; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 3 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170757 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, E-way @ Mooreland; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in Apr 2012; WIRC 00170683 • 2 ♀; Wisconsin, Dane County, Smith Drumlin; 42.98988, -89.06097; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 15 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00170786; 00170788 • 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Dane County, Waubesa Wetlands; WDNR Misc/SB Sauer leg.; galled plant material collected Apr 2007; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging before 19 May 2007; WIRC 00170805; 00170807 • 2 ♂; Wisconsin, Grant County, Dewey Heights Prairie; 42.734647, -91.020306; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 14 Oct 2011; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170664; 00171400 • 2 ♀; Wisconsin, Green County, Green Cemetery Prairie; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170663; 00170758 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Green County, Muralt - South; 42.695505, -89.49367; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 4 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170754 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Iowa County, Hollandale Seed Orchard; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 5 Apr 2012; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170756 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Iowa County, TNC/Lease; 42.97357, -89.88900; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 17 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00170678 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Kenosha County, Bain Station; 42.556352, -87.893763; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 30 Sep 2011; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2012; WIRC 00170778 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Waukesha County, Scuppernong Prairie State Natural Area; 42.89947, -88.50180; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 15 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2009; WIRC 00170637.

Diagnosis

A. minor is the only described species of Antistrophus in which the mesoscutellar disc is strongly ovate and distinctly wider than long (Fig. 7F). Additionally, A. minor is easily separable from A. rufus (which also induces inconspicuous galls in stems of the S. laciniatum) and A. meganae by the shape and length of the mesoscutellar foveae; in A. minor, the mesoscutellar foveae are subquadrate and reach about one third across the mesoscutellar disc (Fig. 7F) but are shorter and subrectangular in A. rufus (Fig. 8F) and longer and ovate in A. meganae (Fig. 6F). A. minor and A. meganae are also the only species of the rufus complex in which the POL is longer than the OOL. See additional comments in the diagnosis to A. rufus.

Figure 7.

Antistrophus minor Gillette, 1891 A female lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248273) B female proximal antennomeres (PSUC_FEM_253176) C female dorsal head (PSUC_FEM_253091) D female dorsal mesosoma (PSUC_FEM_248257) E female dorsal mesoscutum (PSUC_FEM_248257); not = notaulus F female dorsal scutellum (PSUC_FEM_248257); scf = mesoscutellar fovea G male lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_253191) H gallss and larvae of A. minor or A. rufus in a stem of Silphium laciniatum L.

Description

Female (Fig. 7A)–Body length: 1.4–2.4 mm (x̄ = 2.0 mm; n = 25; lectotype = 2.3). Color: Antenna color: red brown throughout, at most slightly darker distally than proximally. Head color: vertex and occiput dark red brown, mandibles red brown basally to darker red brown apically, rest of head red brown throughout. Color: pronotum and propodeum mostly red brown, with some dark red brown coloration medially, mesoscutum dark red brown with at least distinct red brown spots posterolaterally, scutellum red brown to dark red brown, and mesopleuron dark red brown to red brown. Wing membrane color: hyaline throughout. Wing vein color: light brown. Leg color: red brown throughout, except for apical tarsomere which is conspicuously darker. Metasoma color: red brown to dark red brown. Antennae (Fig. 7B): Antennomere count: 13. F1 length: 2.6× as long as wide. F2 length: 3.6× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.4. Placodeal sensilla on F2: absent; sensilla present only on F3 and following antennomeres. Head (Fig. 7C): Upper frons sculpture: reticulate. Gena posterolateral projection in anterior view: distinctly projecting past compound eyes. Facial radiating striae: distinct and complete, reaching compound eyes. Supraclypeal area sculpture: reticulate. Supraclypeal area projection: slightly projecting. OOL vs POL: POL distinctly longer. OOL vs LOL: OOL twice LOL. POL vs LOL: POL greater than twice LOL. LOL vs DLO: LOL longer. Vertex sculpture: reticulate throughout. Clypeus sculpture: reticulate. Mesosoma (Figs 7D–F): Pronotum pilosity: densely pilose along anterior margin and with only sparse setae elsewhere. Pronotum excluding pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron excluding speculum sculpture: reticulate with fine intermediate striae. Speculum sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron pilosity: ventral margin and mesopleural triangle densely pilose and bare elsewhere. Mesoscutum pilosity: sparsely pilose. Mesoscutum sculpture: reticulate. Apparent length of anterior parallel lines: reaching one third across mesoscutum. Morphology of anterior parallel lines: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Apparent length of parapsidal grooves: reaching halfway across mesoscutum. Morphology of parapsidal grooves: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Morphology of median mesoscutal impression: apparent as a shallow impression extending across most of mesoscutum. Notauli completeness: incomplete, distinct posteriorly to indistinct in anterior third. Morphology of notauli: appearing as wide indentations with sloping edges throughout distinct portions. Metapleural sulcus: meeting posterior mesopleuron at about one third of its height. Lateral propodeal carinae: distinct and subparallel. Metapleuron sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar foveae distinction: distinct, relatively deep anteriorly to shallower and inconspicuously delimited posteriorly. Mesoscutellar foveae sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar disc sculpture: rugose-reticulate, primarily reticulate, but with distinct rugose-reticulate sculpture seemingly restricted to outer margins. Mesoscutellar foveae length: long, reaching about one third across mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae shape: subovate, slightly longer than wide, separated by a narrow linear carina. Mesoscutellar disc shape: ovate, distinctly longer than wide. Wings: Marginal cell length: 3.1× as long as wide. Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: absent. Metasoma: Punctation of metasomal terga: T3 punctate only in posterior third and with T4 and following punctate throughout.

Male (Fig. 7G)–Same as female except for the following: Body length: 1.1–2.0 mm (x̄ = 1.6; n = 25). Antennae: Antennomere count: 14. F1 length: 2.3× as long as wide. F2 length: 2.9× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.3. Placodeal sensilla on F2: present. Wings: Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: present. Metasoma: Metasoma size: conspicuously smaller than in female.

Biology

Antistrophus minor induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium laciniatum (Fig. 7H) (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021). Weld (1926) reported A. minor from Silphium terebinthinaceum, but Weld’s specimens from this host plant truly represent Antistrophus meganae.

Distribution

Antistrophus minor was described from adults reared alongside A. rufus in Illinois. We examined specimens providing new state records from Iowa and Wisconsin. Known and potential distribution are summarized in Fig. 9. It appears that A. minor is likely sympatric with A. rufus throughout the distribution of S. laciniatum, although further rearing of Silphium species will be needed to better understand the role of geography in the distribution of Antistrophus, especially regarding these two species.

Remarks

See remarks under Antistrophus rufus for notes on generic nomenclature and distinction of A. minor from A. rufus.

Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891

Fig. 8

Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891: 195. ♀, ♂ (type locality: unknown location in Illinois, USA).

Aulax rufa (Gillette, 1891): Kieffer 1902: 93.

Material examined

Lectotype (deposited at INHS; designated by Frison [1927]). USA • ♀; Illinois; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum; record number 5500; INHS Insect Collection 52812.

Lectoallotype (deposited at INHS; designated by Frison [1927]). USA • ♂; same data as lectotype; INHS Insect Collection 52813.

Paralectotypes. Deposited at AMNH: USA • 1 ♀; same data as lectotype; AMNH_IZC 00393875.

Deposited at INHS: USA • 3 ♀ and 1 ♂; same data as lectotype; INHS Insect Collection 294742–294745.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 4 ♀ and 2 ♂; same data as lectotype; USNMENT 00961146; 01822098–01822102.

Other material

(16 ♀ and 21 ♂) . Deposited at INHS: • 5 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, Iroquois County, Buckley Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 52815–52818; 52820–52821 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 18238–18239.

Deposited at PSUC: USA • 3 ♀ and 4 ♂; Illinois, Champaign County, Gifford, Shortline Railroad Prairie; 40.305, -87.999; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 10 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248301; 248307; 248310; 248315–248317 • 1 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, McLean County, Chenoa, Weston Cemetery Prairie; 40.725, -88.606; JF Tooker and AR Deans leg.; galled plant material collected 11 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248293; 248296 • 1 ♀ and 7 ♂; Iowa, Story County, Grant, Interstate 35 and E 13^th St. Prairie Restoration; MJ Hatfield leg.; galled plant material collected 30 Nov 2020; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May or June 2021; PSUC_FEM_248163; 248308; 248311–248313; 248318–248320.

Deposited at USNM: USA • 1 ♀ and 2 ♂; Illinois, Ford County, Gifford, Ludlow Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2000; USNMENT 01822106; 01822109–01822110 • 2 ♀ and 1 ♂; Illinois, Iroquois County, Buckley Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2000; USNMENT 01822104; 01822107–01822108 • 7 ♀ and 2 ♂; Illinois, Vermillion County, Fithian Railroad Prairie; J. Tooker leg.; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in June 2000; INHS Insect Collection 52822–52828; UNSMENT 01822103; 01822105 • 1 ♂; Illinois, Evanston; reared; UNSMENT 01822112.

Deposited at WIRC: USA • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Columbia County, Goose Pd. Bicentennial; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected Fall 2008; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in July 2009; WIRC 00170506 • 1 ♀; Wisconsin, Dane County, Thousands Rock Pt. Pr.; 42.99064, -89.8303; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 17 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in May 2009; WIRC 00170687 • 1 ♂; Wisconsin, Waukesha County, Scuppernong Prairie State Natural Area; 42.89947, -88.5018; DNR Study SSGB leg.; galled plant material collected 15 Apr 2009; reared from stem of Silphium laciniatum, emerging in Apr 2009; WIRC 00170643.

Diagnosis

A. rufus is easily recognized amongst members of the rufus complex by the shape and dimensions of the mesoscutellar foveae (Fig. 8F), which are short and subrectangular in A. rufus but longer and subquadrate or ovate in the other species. The narrow, well-defined notauli (Fig. 8E) are also characteristic, as the other species all have wider and less-defined notauli. The smallest A. rufus specimens may exhibit slightly wider notauli, but the short, rectangular scutellar foveae are always apparent and readily distinguish this species from others. A. rufus also has the shortest F2 relative to its width in females (2.8× as long as wide; Fig. 8B)).

Figure 8.

Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891 A female lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248316) B female proximal antennomeres (PSUC_FEM_246062) C female dorsal head (PSUC_FEM_246062) D female dorsal mesosoma (PSUC_FEM_253129) E female dorsal mesoscutum (PSUC_FEM_253129); not = notaulus F female dorsal scutellum (PSUC_FEM_253129); scf = mesoscutellar fovea G male lateral habitus (PSUC_FEM_248308) H gallss and larvae of A. minor or A. rufus in a stem of Silphium laciniatum L.

A. rufus are commonly reared alongside A. minor from inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium laciniatum L.; these species are separated by the characters given above and those in the diagnosis of A. minor.

Description

Female (Fig. 8A)–Body length: 2.3–3.6 mm (x̄ = 2.9 mm; n = 25; lectotype = 2.8 mm). Color: Antenna color: red brown throughout, at most slightly darker distally than proximally. Head color: vertex and occiput dark red brown, mandibles red brown basally to darker red brown apically, rest of head red brown throughout. Mesosoma color: pronotum and propodeum red brown laterally to dark red brown medially, mesoscutum dark red brown with distinct posterolateral red brown spots, scutellum dark red brown, and mesopleuron dark red brown dorsally and ventrally but red brown medially. Wing membrane color: hyaline throughout. Wing vein color: light brown. Leg color: red brown throughout, except for apical tarsomere which is conspicuously darker. Metasoma color: red brown to dark red brown. Antennae (Fig. 8B): Antennomere count: 13. F1 length: 2.4× as long as wide. F2 length: 2.8× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.2. Placodeal sensilla on F2: absent; sensilla present only on F3 and following antennomeres. Head (Fig. 8C): Upper frons sculpture: reticulate. Gena posterolateral projection in anterior view: distinctly projecting past compound eyes. Facial radiating striae: distinct and complete, reaching compound eyes. Supraclypeal area sculpture: reticulate. Supraclypeal area projection: slightly projecting. OOL vs POL: OOL distinctly longer. OOL vs LOL: OOL greater than twice LOL. POL vs LOL: POL twice LOL. LOL vs DLO: LOL longer. Vertex sculpture: reticulate throughout. Clypeus sculpture: reticulate. Mesosoma (Figs 8D–F): Pronotum pilosity: densely pilose along anterior margin and with only sparse setae elsewhere. Pronotum excluding pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Pronotal plate sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron excluding speculum sculpture: reticulate with fine intermediate striae. Speculum sculpture: reticulate. Mesopleuron pilosity: ventral margin and mesopleural triangle densely pilose and bare elsewhere. Mesoscutum pilosity: sparsely pilose. Mesoscutum sculpture: reticulate. Apparent length of anterior parallel lines: reaching one third across mesoscutum. Morphology of anterior parallel lines: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Apparent length of parapsidal grooves: reaching halfway across mesoscutum. Morphology of parapsidal grooves: narrow, distinct throughout perceptible length. Morphology of median mesoscutal impression: apparent as a shallow impression extending across most of mesoscutum. Notauli completeness: incomplete, distinct posteriorly to indistinct in anterior third. Morphology of notauli: appearing as narrow, well-delimited indentations throughout distinct portions. Metapleural sulcus: meeting posterior mesopleuron at about one third of its height. Lateral propodeal carinae: distinct and subparallel. Metapleuron sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar foveae distinction: distinct, relatively deep anteriorly to shallower and inconspicuously delimited posteriorly. Mesoscutellar foveae sculpture: reticulate. Mesoscutellar disc sculpture: rugose-reticulate, primarily reticulate, but with distinct rugose-reticulate sculpture seemingly restricted to outer margins. Mesoscutellar foveae length: short, occupying only anterior quarter of mesoscutellar disc. Mesoscutellar foveae shape: subrectangular, distinctly wider than long, and separated by a broad, elevated linear carina. Mesoscutellar disc shape: subcircular, about as wide as long. Wings: Marginal cell length: 2.7× as long as wide. Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: absent. Metasoma: Punctation of metasomal terga: T3 punctate only in posterior third and with T4 and following punctate throughout.

Male (Fig. 8G)–Same as female except for the following: Body length: 1.9–3.5 mm (x̄ = 2.5 mm; n = 25). Antennae: Antennomere count: 14. F1 length: 2.1× as long as wide. F2 length: 2.5× as long as wide. F2:F1 length ratio: 1.3. Placodeal sensilla on F2: present. Wings: Fore wing distal fringe of marginal setae: present. Metasoma: Metasoma size: conspicuously smaller than in female.

Biology

Antistrophus rufus induces inconspicuous, externally imperceptible galls in stems of Silphium laciniatum (Fig. 8H) (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021). Records associating A. rufus with other host plants most likely represent distinct species including the other species addressed in the present work.

Distribution

Antistrophus rufus was described from material collected in Illinois (USA) and has since been reported from Kansas (Tooker et al. 2004; Nastasi and Deans 2021). Additional material that we examined revealed additional records from Iowa and Wisconsin, and reiterated occurrence of this species in Kansas (Suppl. material 1: table 1). Known and potential distribution are summarized in Fig. 9.

Figure 9.

Known and potential distributions for species of the Antistrophus rufus complex. Host plant distribution follows Kartesz (2015). States in green reflect established distribution, while states in yellow reflect potential distribution based on records of the host plant.

Remarks

Kieffer (1902) synonymized Antistrophus with Aylax (=Aulax) Hartig, 1840. Some authors (e.g., Beutenmüller 1910) follow Kieffer’s synonymy, but others appear to have rejected or otherwise omitted this change from many works treating the group (e.g., Weld 1951; Nieves-Aldrey 1994). This generic synonymy and the resulting species synonyms were accidentally omitted from Nastasi and Deans’ (2021) catalogue, and we are unable to locate a nomenclatural act reinstating Antistrophus as a valid genus. The genus Aylax has now long been regarded to include only two species of gall wasps inducing galls on Papaver (Papaveraceae) (Nieves-Aldrey 1994; Ronquist et al. 2015). Additionally, the two genera are now placed in different tribes: Aylax is now placed in the tribe Aylacini, while Antistrophus is placed in the Aulacideini. We regard here Antistrophus as a valid genus independent of Aylax, although Antistrophus represents a heterogeneous assemblage as currently defined based on preliminary data from an ongoing revisionary study (Nastasi et al., unpublished data).

Lastly, two specimens labeled as paralectotypes in the USNM collection (USNMENT 01823001; 01823000) do not appear to be Antistrophus rufus and more closely resemble A. minor. They are both in relatively poor condition; at this time, their species identities cannot be substantiated due to damage to multiple body parts.

Key to the species of the Antistrophus rufus complex

Our assessment of diagnostic characters allowed for development of a key to the species of the rufus complex. A key to all species of Antistrophus is beyond the scope of this work but will be prepared as part of ongoing revisionary studies of North American herb gall wasps (Nastasi et al., unpublished data). For best results using this key, we recommend using light diffusion in combination with high magnification (see Methods).

Before running a specimen through the below key, one should confirm that it is indeed an Antistrophus species using the keys in Nastasi et al. (2024) and/or Buffington et al. (2020) where appropriate, and then confirming that the specimen belongs to the A. rufus complex using the diagnostic criteria given in the diagnosis to the A. rufus complex and in Table 2.

1	Mesoscutellar disc (Fig. 7F) elongate and ovate, about 1.3× as long as wide. Galls in stems of Silphium laciniatum	*A. minor*
–	Mesoscutellar disc subcircular, about 1.1× as long as widest width (Figs 4F, 5F, 6F, 8F). Galls in stems of various Silphium including S. laciniatum	2
2	Mesoscutellar foveae (Fig. 8F) subrectangular, distinctly wider than long, and relatively short, only about one fourth as long as mesoscutellar disc. Notauli (Fig. 8E) usually apparent as narrower, well-defined lines throughout distinct portion. F2 of female about 2.8× as long as wide (Fig. 8B). Galls in stems of Silphium laciniatum	*A. rufus*
–	Mesoscutellar foveae subquadrate or ovate, at least as long as wide, and relatively longer, at least one third as long as mesoscutellar disc (Figs 4F, 5F, 6F). Notauli apparent as wider, sloping indentations throughout distinct portion (Figs 4E, 5E, 6E). F2 of female longer, at least 3.3× as long as wide. Galls in stems of other hosts	3
3	Mesoscutellar foveae (Fig. 6F) ovate, longer than wide, and reaching nearly halfway across mesoscutellar disc. POL longer than OOL (Fig. 6C). Galls in stems of Silphium terebinthinaceum	*A. meganae*
–	Mesoscutellar foveae subquadrate, occupying anterior third of mesoscutellar disc (Figs 5F, 6F). POL shorter than OOL (Figs 5C, 6C). Galls in stems of other hosts	4
4	F2 of female about 3.8× as long as wide (Fig. 4B). Mesoscutellar disc (Fig. 4F) usually with coarser sculpture, with sculpture mostly rugose-reticulate, especially medially. Galls in stems of Silphium perfoliatum	*A. jeanae*
–	F2 of female about 3.3× as long as wide (Fig. 5B). Mesoscutellar disc (Fig. 5F) mostly reticulate, with rugose sculpture restricted to outer margins. Galls in stems of Silphium integrifolium	*A. laurenae*

Discussion

Our findings suggest that the species belonging to the A. rufus complex are not truly cryptic, and are readily identifiable with appropriate diagnostic characters. Other species complexes of herb gall wasps might benefit from a similar investigation of morphological species boundaries, especially species of Aulacidea Ashmead inducing galls on Lactuca L. or other Antistrophus inducing externally perceptible galls on terminal stems and in flowers of Silphium. Such analyses would supplement the original descriptions and would help determine whether true cryptic species occur in Aulacideini.

While the taxonomic impediment impacts a tremendous number of species across all taxa, especially in groups such as “little brown beetles,” microlepidoptera, and many groups of parasitic wasps, our study of the A. rufus complex demonstrates that such issues can be disentangled with dedicated revisionary approaches. While no number of characters can ensure discovery of novel diagnostic characters, attempts to evaluate larger numbers of characters, as attempted here, may help decipher boundaries of cryptic species that would otherwise require molecular characters or additional methods. Examining 50 characters proved sufficient for the rufus complex, but for other taxa, it could be useful to apply a “brute force” approach involving a much greater number of candidate morphological characters. In such a scenario, different groups of characters could be tested iteratively until robust species diagnoses are achieved.

After developing the key to the rufus complex that we present above, we keyed and identified over 50 additional specimens belonging to the rufus complex from the INHS and USNM collections (Suppl. material 1: table 1), including both already determined and previously unidentified material. One series of specimens deposited at USNM represents a new state record of A. meganae from Michigan; these specimens’ labels suggesting they were collected off “elecampane” (presumably referring to Inula helenium L.), but this likely constitutes a misidentification of the proper host plant Silphium terebinthinaceum which is rather similar visually. We found a single specimen of A. jeanae amongst unsorted material in the USNM collection (USNMENT 01822302); this specimen was collected in Missouri and represents a new state record (see also remarks for A. jeanae).

Our examination indicates that A. minor is truly a species distinct from A. rufus despite previous suggestion that they may be synonymous. In various cynipid taxa, including Aulacideini, a single host plant species is galled by several distinct species of gall wasps (Nieves-Aldrey et al. 2004; Melika 2006; Nastasi and Deans 2021; Nastasi et al. 2024). However, few (if any) gall wasps share the same host plant while inhabiting the same plant organ and the same portion of gall phenospace (i.e., host plant organ combined with gall phenotype). While most of the A. rufus complex species each occupy a unique host plant species, the Antistrophus rufus complex appears to be somewhat unique among gall wasps, as two species both induce inconspicuous galls within the stems of the same host plant S. laciniatum. This suggests speciation mechanisms may be involved (e.g., geographic isolation or host switching) that may not follow the typically observed speciation in gall wasps, which normally is associated with shifts between host plants or gall morphotypes, at least in oak gall wasps (Cynipini) or their inquilines (Synergini sensu lato) (e.g., Ward et al. 2020, 2022, 2024).

Regarding evolution of host plant associations, the topology of our Bayesian analysis provides suggestion of cospeciation of A. rufus complex species with their host plants, as there was sorting of A. rufus complex species by host plant lineage (Fig. 2). Clevinger and Panero’s (2000) phylogenetic analysis of ETS and ITS markers suggested two major clades of Silphium; the rufus complex includes species associated with both sections. Their sect. Composita includes species with deep taproots and prominent basal rosettes, including S. laciniatum and S. terebinthinaceum, while their sect. Silphium is composed mostly of species with more fibrous roots and without prominent basal rosettes, including S. integrifolium and S. perfoliatum. In our phylogenetic analysis, species galling sect. Silphium (A. jeanae and A. laurenae) formed a well-supported clade sister to the three species galling sect. Composita (A. meganae, A. minor, and A. rufus), although the latter clade was less strongly supported (posterior probability = 0.89).

More generally, our data show that each studied Silphium species has distinct species of Antistrophus occupying their stems. While the present study focused on the “big four” species of Silphium ubiquitous in prairies in the Midwestern U.S., a recent taxonomic treatment (Brock and Weakley 2020) suggests there are as many as 23 Silphium species; it is likely that more species of the rufus complex or other Antistrophus will be revealed in these other species. The deep divergences in DNA barcodes among these gall wasps suggest a long history of isolation and may indicate that additional species of the A. rufus complex await discovery and description. While interspecific divergences in our DNA barcode data are much higher than the supposed 2% “barcode gap” between animal species, other studies of diverse insect groups often find divergence in excess of 10% between congeneric species (Pentisaari et al. 2014; Lin et al. 2015; Song et al. 2018). Locating additional undescribed members of the rufus complex could aid in resolving relationships amongst the known species, and future research on host plant affinity and co-phylogeny between Silphium and their gall wasps will help inform understanding of these processes.

Acknowledgments

We thank many individuals for their contributions to this manuscript: R. Luke Kresslein co-proposed the symposium for the 2022 Entomological Society of America annual meeting that inspired this study. Matt Buffington assisted us in imaging specimens at USNM, as well as providing valuable advice in cynipid taxonomy. Mason Brock provided valuable commentary on systematics of Silphium. Jim Nardi allowed us to collect on his property. The Grand Prairie Friends and the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission provided permits for field collection in Illinois. José-Luis Nieves-Aldrey provided commentary on taxonomy of Aulacideini. Richard Henderson, Jay Watson, and Zhiwei Liu provided material and commentary on the Silphium gall wasp system. Katherine Myers transcribed some gall wasp label data for material referenced in this study. Antoine Guiguet assisted in rearing gall wasps and allowed us to use his phenomenal photographs of adult gall wasps. Antonio Casadei assisted with field collections. Laura Porturas and Codey Mathis provided much-needed encouragement and support to the Frost Entomological Museum team during the course of this study. Jimmie Thomspson and many others provided many specimens that we have been referencing in our ongoing studies of herb gall wasp systems.

We are also indebted to the following individuals for making their respective collections accessible to us for this study: Jim Carpenter, Christine LeBeau, and Melody Doering (AMNH); Tommy McElrath, Chris Dietrich, and Michelle Kohler (INHS); Craig Brabant and Dan Young (WIRC); and Matt Buffington and Cecilia Escobar (USNM).

Lastly, Matt Buffington, José Luis Nieves-Aldrey, and Y. Miles Zhang contributed excellent reviews that greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

The first author was generously supported by two awards from the Society of Systematic Biologists: Mini-ARTS and the Graduate Student Research Award.

This material is based, in part, upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. DEB-1856626 and DEB-2338008. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Andrews KR, Gerritsen A, Rashed A, Crowder DW, Rondon SI, van Herk WG, Vernon R, Wanner KW, Wilson CM, New DD, Fagnan MW, Hohenlohe PA, Hunter SS (2020) Wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) genomic analysis reveals putative cryptic species, population structure, and adaptation to pest control. Communications Biology 3: 489. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-01169-9

Ashmead WH (1887) On the cynipidous galls of Florida, with descriptions of new species and synopses of the described species of North America. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 14: 125–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/25076487

Ashmead WH (1896) Descriptions of new cynipidous galls and gall-wasps in the United States National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 19(1102): 113–136. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.19-1102.113

Ashmead WH (1897) Description of some new genera in the family Cynipidae. Psyche 8(253): 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1155/1897/60546

Azmaz M, Katılmış Y (2020) A new species of herb gall wasp (Cynipidae, Aulacideini, Aulacidea) from Turkey. Zootaxa 4747(2): 378–390. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4747.2.9

Bassett HF (1890) New species of North American Cynipidae. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 17(1): 59–92.

Beutenmüller W (1908) A new cynipid from Arizona. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 16: 45.

Beutenmüller W (1910a) The North American species of Aylax and their galls. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 28: 137–144.

Beutenmüller W (1910b) The North American species of Aulacidea and their galls. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 28: 253–258.

Borowiec ML (2016) AMAS: a fast tool for alignment manipulation and computing of summary statistics. PeerJ 4:e1660. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1660

Brock M, Weakley AS (2020) Silphium Linnaeus 1753 (Rosinweed) In: Weakley AS (Ed.) Flora of the Southeastern United States. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Herbarium (Chapel Hill, North Carolina), 1563–1566.

Brodie WM (1892) Canadian galls and their occupants–Aulax nabali, N. S. The Canadian Entomologist 24(1): 12–14. https://doi.org/10.4039/ent2412-1

Buffington ML, Forshage M, Liljeblad J, Tang CT, van Noort S (2020) World Cynipoidea (Hymenoptera): a key to higher–level groups. Insect Systematics and Diversity 4(4): 1. https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixaa003

Buffington ML, Prasifka JR, Gates MW, Kula RR, Peterson K (2017) New host plant and distribution records for Antistrophus laciniatus Gillette, 1891 (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), an herb gall wasp on Silphium integrifolium Michx.(Asteraceae), with notes on other S. integrifolium-associated wasps. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 119(4): 660–666. https://doi.org/10.4289/0013-8797.119.4.660

Clevinger JA, Panero JL (2000) Phylogenetic analysis of Silphium and subtribe Engelmanniinae (Asteraceae: Heliantheae) based on ITS and ETS sequence data. American Journal of Botany 87(4): 565–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/2656600

von Cossel M, Amarysti C, Wilhelm H, Priya N, Winkler B, Hoerner L (2020) The replacement of maize (Zea mays L.) by cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) as biogas substrate and its implications for the energy and material flows of a large biogas plant. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 14(2): 152–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2084

Deans AR, Nastasi LF, Montelongo DC (2023) Glossary of gall terms. V7. https://doi.org/10.26207/22e9-ck06 [Accessed 16 March 2023]

Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3(5): 294–299.

Frison TH (1927) A list of the insect types in the collections of the Illinois State Natural History Survey and the University of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 16(04): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21900/j.inhs.v16.295

Gillette CP (1891) Descriptions of new Cynipidae in the collection of the Illinois State Laboratory of Natural History. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 3(11): 191–206. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/55691

Hansen S, Addison P, Benoit L, Haran JM (2021) Barcoding pest species in a biodiversity hot-spot: the South African polyphagous broad-nosed weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Entiminae). Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e66452. https://doi.org/10.3897%2FBDJ.9.e66452

Harris RA (1979) A glossary of surface sculpturing. Occasional Papers in Entomology 28: 1–31.

Hartig T (1843) Zweiter nachtrag zur naturgeschichte der Gallwespen. Zeitschrift fur Entomologie 4: 395–422.

Hebert PD, Penton EH, Burns JM, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W (2004) Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(41): 14812–14817. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0406166101

Henderson R, Sauer SB (2010) Silphium gall wasps: little-known prairie specialists. In 22^nd North American Prairie Conference. Cedar Falls, Iowa, 116–121.

Jasinskas A, Simonavičiūtė R, Šiaudinis G, Liaudanskienė I, Antanaitis Š, Arak M, Olt J (2014) The assessment of common mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.) and cup plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.) productivity and technological preparation for solid biofuel. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 101(1): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.13080/z-a.2014.101.003

Kartesz JT (2015) The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). North American Plant Atlas. Chapel Hill, N.C. http://bonap.net/napa [accessed 15 April 2024]

Kinsey AC (1920) New species and synonymy of American Cynipidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 42: 293–317.

Kowalski R, Wierciński J (2004) Evaluation of chemical composition of some Silphium L. species seeds as alternative foodstuff raw materials. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 13(4): 349–354. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10040132

Lanfear R, Calcott B, Ho SY, Guindon S (2012) PartitionFinder: combined selection of partitioning schemes and substitution models for phylogenetic analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29(6): 1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss020

Lanfear R, Frandsen PB, Wright AM, Senfeld T, Calcott B (2017) PartitionFinder 2: New Methods for Selecting Partitioned Models of Evolution for Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analyses. Molecular Biology and Evolution 34(3): 772–773. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw260

Lin X, Stur E, Ekrem T (2015) Exploring Genetic Divergence in a Species-Rich Insect Genus Using 2790 DNA Barcodes. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0138993. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138993

MacLeod N, Canty RJ, Polaszek A (2022) Morphology-based identification of Bemisia tabaci cryptic species puparia via embedded group-contrast convolution neural network analysis. Systematic Biology 71(5): 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syab098

McCracken MI, Egbert DB (1922) California gall-making Cynipidae: With descriptions of new species. Stanford University Press (Stanford, California), 70 pp.

Meier R, Blaimer BB, Buenaventura E, Hartop E, von Rintelen T, Srivathsan A, Yeo D (2021) A re-analysis of the data in Sharkey et al.’s (2021) minimalist revision reveals that BINs do not deserve names, but BOLD Systems needs a stronger commitment to open science. Cladistics 38(2): 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12489

Melika G (2006) Gall wasps of Ukraine, Vol. 1. Vestnik zoologii, The Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kiev, Ukraine), 300 pp.

Nastasi LF, Buffington ML, Davis CK, Deans AR (2024) Key to the North American tribes and genera of herb, rose, bramble, and inquiline gall wasps (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea, Cynipidae sensu lato). Zookeys 1196: 177–207. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1196.118460

Nastasi LF, Deans AR (2021) Catalogue of Rose Gall, Herb Gall, and Inquiline Gall Wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) of the United States, Canada and Mexico. Biodiversity Data Journal 9: e68558. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e68558

Nastasi LF (2023) SOP LFN-01: Collecting and Rearing Cynipid Wasp Galls on Herbaceous Plants. ScholarSphere, The Pennsylvania State University. https://doi.org/10.26207/b4p8-zn49

Nieves-Aldrey JL (1994) Revision of West-European Genera of the Tribe Aylacini Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 3: 175–206.

Nieves-Aldrey JL (2012) Two new herb gall wasps from Spain, including the description of a new species of Aulacidea Ashmead, 1897 (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae,” Aylacini”) inducing galls on Serratula nudicaulis L. DC (Asteraceae). Graellsia 68(2): 325–339. https://doi.org/10.3989/graellsia.2012.v68.077

Nieves-Aldrey JL (2022) Description of Fumariphilus Nieves-Aldrey, gen. nov., a new genus of herb gall wasps, with a key to genera of the tribe Aulacideini (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Zootaxa 5155(3): 393–413. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5155.3.5

Nieves-Aldrey JL, Gómez JF, Hernández Nieves M (2004) Nuevos datos sobre Aulacidea freesei y Phanacis zwowlferi (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae, Aylacini), inductores de agallas en Silybum marinum (Asteraceae), en la Peninsula ibérica, incluyendo la descripción y comparación de sus larvas terminales y sus agallas. Boletin de la Sociedad Entomológica Aragonesa 34: 85–93.

Nieves-Aldrey JL, Sánchez I, Massa B, Gómez JF (2008) Cynipid wasps inducing galls on plants of the genus Picris (Asteraceae) in Europe, with a description of a new species of Phanacis Foerster (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) from the Iberian Peninsula. Annales de la Societé Entomologique de France 44(3): 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379271.2008.10697561

Pang Y, Liu Z, Su CY, Zhu DH (2020) A new species of Periclistus Foerster, 1869 from China and review of the tribe Diastrophini (Hymenoptera, Cynipoidea, Cynipidae). Zookeys 964: 109–126. https://doi.org/10.3897%2Fzookeys.964.47441

Peni D, Stolarski MJ, Bordiean A, Krzyżaniak M, Dębowski M. (2020) Silphium perfoliatum – A herbaceous crop with increased interest in recent years for multi-purpose use. Agriculture 10(12): 640. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10120640

Pentinsaari M, Hebert PDN, Mutanen M (2014) Barcoding beetles: A regional survey of 1872 species reveals high identification success and unusually deep interspecific divergences. PLoS ONE 9(9): e108651. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108651

Riley CV, Walsh B (1869) The Lygodesmia pea gall. American Entomologist 2: 73–74. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32620520

Ronquist F, Liljeblad J (2001) Evolution of the gall wasp-host plant association. Evolution 55(12): 2503–2522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2001.tb00765.x

Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A, Höhna S, Larget B, Liu L, Suchard MA, Huelsenbeck JP (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice Across a Large Model Space. Systematic Biology (61)3: 539–542. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/sys029

Ronquist F, Nieves-Aldrey JL, Buffington ML, Liu Z, Liljeblad J, Nylander JA (2015) Phylogeny, evolution and classification of gall wasps: the plot thickens. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0123301. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123301

Seltmann KC, Yoder MJ, Mikó I, Forshage M, Bertone MA, Agosti D, Austin AD, Balhoff JP, Borowiec ML, Brady SG, Broad GR, Brothers DJ, Burks RA, Buffington ML, Campbell HM, Dew KJ, Ernst AF, Fernández-Triana JL, Gates MW, Gibson GAP, Jennings JT, Johnson NF, Karlsson D, Kawada R, Krogmann L, Kula RR, Mullins PL, Ohl M, Rasmussen C, Ronquist F, Schulmeister S, Sharkey MJ, Talamas E, Tucker E, Vilhelmsen L, Ward PS, Wharton RA, Deans AR (2012) A hymenopterists’ guide to the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology: utility, clarification, and future directions. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 27: 67–88. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.27.2961

Song C, Lin XL, Wang Q, Wang XH (2018) DNA barcodes successfully delimit morphospecies in a superdiverse insect genus. Zoological Scripta 47(3): 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12284

Struck TH, Feder JL, Bendiksby M, Birkeland S, Cerca J, Gusarov VI, Kistenich S, Larsson KH, Liow LH, Nowak MD, Stedje B, Bachmann L, Dimitrov D (2018) Finding evolutionary processes hidden in cryptic species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33(3): 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.11.007

Tavakoli M, Stone GN, Pujade-Villar J, Melika G (2022) New herb gall wasps from Iran (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Zootaxa 5155(3): 301–333. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5155.3.1

Ţiţei V, Cîrlig N, Guţu A (2020) Some biological peculiarities and economic value of the cultivation of cup plant, Silphium perfoliatum L. Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe Reale şi ale Naturii) 136(6): 79–82. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4431626

Tooker JF, Deans AR, Hanks LM (2004) Description of the Antistrophus rufus (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) species complex, including two new species. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 13: 125–133.

Vilela AE, González-Paleo L, Ravetta DA, Murrell EG, Van Tassel DL (2020) Balancing forage production, seed yield, and pest management in the perennial sunflower Silphium integrifolium (Asteraceae). Agronomy 10(10): 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10101471

Ward AKG, Sheikh SI, Forbes AA (2020) Diversity, host ranges, and potential drivers of speciation among the inquiline enemies of oak gall wasps (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae). Insect Systematics and Diversity 4(6): 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/isd/ixaa017

Ward AK, Bagley RK, Egan SP, Hood GR, Ott JR, Prior KM, Shiekh SI, Weinersmith KL, Zhang L, Zhang YM, Forbes AA (2022) Speciation in Nearctic oak gall wasps is frequently correlated with changes in host plant, host organ, or both. Evolution 76(8): 1849–1867. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14562

Ward AKG, Zhang YM, Brown GE, Hippie AC, Prior KM, Rollins S, Sierra N, Sheikh SI, Tribull CM, Forbes AA (2024) Speciation in kleptoparasites of oak gall wasps often correlates with shifts into new tree habitats, tree organs, or gall morphospace. Evolution 78(1): 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/evolut/qpad202

Weld LH (1926) Field notes on gall-inhabiting cynipid wasps with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 68(2611): 1–131. https://doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.68-2611.1

Weld LH (1951) Superfamily Cynipoidea. In: Muesebeck CFW, Krombein KV, Townes HK (Eds) Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico: Synoptic catalog (No. 2). US Department of Agriculture, 594–654.

Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Döring M, Giovanni R, Robertson T, Vieglais D (2012) Darwin Core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PloS ONE 7(1): e29715. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715

Yoder MJ, Mikó I, Seltmann KC, Bertone MA, Deans AR (2010) A gross anatomy ontology for Hymenoptera. PloS ONE 5(12): e15991. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015991

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1

Supplementary information

Louis F. Nastasi, John F. Tooker, Charles K. Davis, Cecil N. Smith, Timothy S. Frey, M. J. Hatfield, Tara M. Presnall, Heather M. Hines, Andrew R. Deans

Data type: (measurement/occurrence/multimedia/etc.)

Explanation note: table 1. Digitized complete specimen data for all material examined table 2. Morphological characters examined table 3. Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology URI table listing morphological terminology table 4. Raw morphological data table 5. Overview of diagnostic utility of examined characters table 6. Specimen data for sequenced material.

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Download file (131.75 kb)

﻿Abstract

Keywords

﻿Introduction

﻿Methods

﻿Gall collection and rearing

﻿Museum collection material

﻿Morphological character selection, description, and examination

﻿Imaging and drawings

﻿Nomenclature of host plants

﻿Distribution of gall wasps and host plants

﻿Molecular phylogenetics

﻿Identification of additional museum material

﻿Results

﻿Morphological evaluation

﻿Molecular phylogenetics

﻿Taxonomy of the Antistrophus rufus species complex

﻿ Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Material examined

Other material

Diagnosis

Description

Biology

Distribution

﻿ Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov.

Material examined

Diagnosis

Description

Etymology

Biology

Distribution

﻿ Antistrophus meganae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Material examined

Other material

Diagnosis

Description

Biology

Distribution

﻿ Antistrophus minor Gillette, 1891

Material examined

Other material

Diagnosis

Description

Biology

Distribution

Remarks

﻿ Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891

Material examined

Other material

Diagnosis

Description

Biology

Distribution

Remarks

﻿Key to the species of the Antistrophus rufus complex

﻿Discussion

﻿Acknowledgments

﻿References

Supplementary material

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Gall collection and rearing

Museum collection material

Morphological character selection, description, and examination

Imaging and drawings

Nomenclature of host plants

Distribution of gall wasps and host plants

Molecular phylogenetics

Identification of additional museum material

Results

Morphological evaluation

Molecular phylogenetics

Taxonomy of the Antistrophus rufus species complex

Antistrophus jeanae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Antistrophus laurenae Nastasi, sp. nov.

Antistrophus meganae Tooker & Hanks, 2004

Antistrophus minor Gillette, 1891

Antistrophus rufus Gillette, 1891

Key to the species of the Antistrophus rufus complex

Discussion

Acknowledgments

References