Monograph
Print
Monograph
Revision of Phoenoteleia Kieffer (Hymenoptera, Scelionidae, Scelioninae)
expand article infoZachary Lahey‡, Luciana Musetti‡, Lubomír Masner§, Norman F. Johnson‡
‡ The Ohio State University, Columbus, United States of America
§ Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Canada

Corresponding author: Zachary Lahey ( zachary.lahey@usda.gov )

Academic editor: Gavin Broad
© 2021 Zachary Lahey, Luciana Musetti, Lubomír Masner, Norman F. Johnson.
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: Lahey Z, Musetti L, Masner L, Johnson NF (2021) Revision of Phoenoteleia Kieffer (Hymenoptera, Scelionidae, Scelioninae). In: Lahey Z, Talamas E (Eds) Advances in the Systematics of Platygastroidea III. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 87: 575-611. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.87.59794
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:F16C4490-086F-4D88-A0BA-FDF13E995C4D
Open Access

Abstract

The genus Phoenoteleia Kieffer is revised. Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, P. rufa Kieffer, and P. rufescens (Kieffer) are redescribed, P. fusca (Kieffer) is transferred to Dicroscelio Kieffer as Dicroscelio fuscus (Kieffer), comb. nov., and six species are described as new: P. buka Lahey, sp. nov. (Fiji), P. gunnelsi Lahey, sp. nov. (Indonesia), P. halua Lahey, sp. nov. (Indonesia), P. kaca Lahey, sp. nov. (Indonesia), P. kuboa Lahey, sp. nov. (Fiji), and P. sanma Lahey, sp. nov. (Vanuatu). The difficulty in associating male and female specimens is discussed. A key is provided to differentiate between the species of Phoenoteleia and the putative closely related genera Mallateleia Dodd and Oxyteleia Kieffer.

Keywords

Australia, Dicroscelio, Indonesia, Malaysia, parasitoid, Platygastroidea, taxonomy

Introduction

The genus Phoenoteleia was described by J. J. Kieffer (1916) for a single female of the type species P. rufa Kieffer collected on the island of Mindanao, Philippines. In the same publication, Kieffer (1916) erected the genus Plagioscelio Kieffer for two species known only from males collected on the same island. Masner (1976) synonymized Plagioscelio with Phoenoteleia based on shared similarities between the propodeum of males and the first gastral tergite of females. He also suggested that P. rufescens (Kieffer) is the male of P. rufa, although he did not synonymize the two species. Dodd (1929) described an additional species, P. canalis Dodd, from Queensland, Australia, as part of his revision of the genus; however, this species was not mentioned by Masner (1976) in his revisionary work on the family Scelionidae.

Masner (1976) included Phoenoteleia in the tribe Calliscelionini Masner based on the following combination of characters: frons without a depression or central keel; antenna 12-merous; skaphion absent; hind wing with tubular submarginal vein reaching hamuli; tibial spur formula 1-1-1; T3 typically the longest of the metasomal tergites; 6 tergites and sternites visible externally in females; 8 tergites and 7 sternites visible externally in males; T7 of female internal and exserted with the ovipositor (i.e., Scelio-type) (Austin and Field 1997). The results of a phylogenomic analysis of the superfamily places Phoenoteleia outside of Calliscelionini (Z. Lahey et al., unpublished data). Instead, Phoenoteleia forms a clade with Mallateleia Dodd and Oxyteleia Kieffer, both of which are members of Psilanteridini Kozlov, which is itself polyphyletic.

Phoenoteleia is a rare genus that is uncommon in collections despite being widely distributed. Nearly all the specimens examined as a part of this study are female, making the species descriptions biased towards characters present only in that sex. With the few males we had available (n = 7), we were unable to reliably associate them with their conspecific females, except for the single male of P. buka sp. nov., which we are confident belongs to that species due shared sculptural patterns. Images of male Phoenoteleia not identified to the level of species are presented in Figures 63–74.

We are now able to build upon the work of Kieffer (1916) and Dodd (1929) based on the accumulation of material collected over the last 50 years. Most of this new material comes from Malaysia and the islands comprising the Indonesian Archipelago in Southeast Asia, with additional specimens from as far west as Sri Lanka (South Asia), as far north as the Amami Islands, Japan (East Asia), and as far east as Vanua Levu, Fiji (Oceania). Photographs of the primary type of each species were examined, except for P. fusca (Kieffer), which is not in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, and is feared lost.

Materials and methods

The numbers prefixed with “FBA”, “MNHN”, “OSUC”, “QM TYPE Hy/”and “USNMENT” are unique identifiers for the individual specimens (note the blank space after some acronyms). Details of the data associated with these specimens may be accessed at the following link: https://mbd-s.asc.ohio-state.edu and entering the identifier in the form.

Abbreviations and morphological terms used in the text: sensillar formula of clavomeres: distribution of the large papillary sensilla (PS) on the ventral clavomeres of the female (Yang et al. 2016), with the segment interval followed by the number of PS per segment (e.g., A12–A8/1-2-2-2-1) (Bin 1981); EH: eye height, length of compound eye measured parallel to dorsoventral midline of head; IOS: interocular space, minimal distance on frons between compound eyes; LOL: lateral ocellar line, shortest distance between the outer margins of the lateral and median ocelli (Masner 1980); OD: ocellar diameter, greatest width of each ocellus; OOL: ocular ocellar line, shortest distance between the inner orbit and outer margin of the lateral ocellus (Masner 1980); POL: posterior ocellar line, shortest distance between the inner margins of the lateral ocelli (Masner 1980); T1, T2, ... T6: metasomal tergite 1, 2, ... 6; S1, S2, … S6: metasomal sternite 1, 2, … 6. Morphological terminology generally follows Mikó et al. (2007). Morphological terms were matched to concepts in the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology (Yoder et al. 2010) using the text analyzer function. A table of morphological terms and URI links is provided in Suppl. material 1.

Most of the images were captured with a Leica MC170 HD digital camera attached to a Leica Z16 APOA microscope using Leica Application Suite (version 4.12.0). The same software was also used to process image stacks into single montage images. Montage images were postprocessed with Adobe Photoshop CC for brightness and contrast. The images in Figures 1, 2, and 5 were produced following the methods of Talamas and Buffington (2015). The scanning electron micrographs of Oxyteleia (Figures 3, 4) were taken following the methods of Talamas et al. (2016). The equipment and software used to create Figure 6 is outlined in Lahey et al. (Lahey et al., this volume). The distribution map (Figure 10) of the Phoenoteleia species treated in this revision was created with SimpleMappr (Shorthouse 2010).

Author contributions

Z. Lahey: character definition and coding, generic concept development, imaging, key development, manuscript preparation, species concept development; L. Musetti: species concept development, key development, loan management; L. Masner: species concept development, key development, provision of specimens; N. F. Johnson: species concept development, key development, project coordination.

Collections

This work is based on specimens deposited in the following repositories:

AEIC American Entomological Institute, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

BPBM Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, USA

CNCI Canadian National Collection of Insects, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

MCZC Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

MNHN Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France

MZB Museum Zoologi Bogor, Bogor, Indonesia

OPPC Ovidiu Popovici Personal Collection, Iași, Romania

OSUC C.A. Triplehorn Collection, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

QM Queensland Museum, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

ROME Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

USNM Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., USA

Abbreviations and characters annotated in the figures

arm armilla (Figure 9)

etc epitorular carina (Figure 32)

ctk central keel (Figure 4)

gen gena (Figure 7)

ffS2 felt field of S2 (Figures 8, 9)

horn horn of T1 (Figures 2, 9)

malp median area of the lateral propodeal area (Figure 7)

mch median channel of horn (Figure 7)

msc mesoscutum (Figure 7)

msct metascutellum (Figure 7)

mshs mesoscutal humeral sulcus (Figure 7)

mT1 membranous venter of horn (Figures 8, 9)

occ occipital carina (Figure 7)

prsl parapsidal line (Figure 7)

sbc submedian carina (Figure 4)

scu mesoscutellum (Figures 3, 5, 7)

shms mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus (Figure 7)

sk skaphion (Figure 3)

sss scutoscutellar sulcus (Figure 7)

vrx vertex (Figure 7)

Character discussion

Armilla

Armillae (sing. armilla) were ancient Roman military decorations (typically armbands or bracelets) awarded to valorous soldiers. We introduce this term to refer to the carina that marks the boundary between the horn (anterior) and basal (posterior) portions of T1. The armilla is present in all species of Phoenoteleia, but it is not unique to the genus. Certain species of Oxyteleia also have an armilla, as do members of several undescribed genera from the Neotropics and the West African species Stenotelea palustris Huggert & Masner.

Median area of the lateral propodeal area

On either side of the horn of T1, directly posterior to the metanotum, lies an inverted triangular region we refer to as the median area of the lateral propodeal area (Mikó et al. 2021). This region is present in every species treated here, except for P. halua sp. nov.

Horn of T1

Complete bisection of the propodeum, metanotum, mesoscutellum, and at least the posterior margin of the mesoscutum by the horn of T1 is one of the defining features of the genus. We observed considerable intra- and interspecific variation in the length of the horn. Horn length did not appear to be correlated with specimen size, with some of the smallest species possessing some of the longest horns (e.g., P. gunnelsi sp. nov. and P. halua sp. nov.). In P. canalis, this character is particularly volatile; specimens with the shortest and some of the longest horns belong to this species.

Key to Mallateleia, Oxyteleia, and Phoenoteleia

1 T3 longer than T2 (Figure 1); fore wing without tubular R vein (Figure 1); T1 of female without horn (Figure 1) Mallateleia Dodd
– T3 as long or shorter than T2 (Figures 2, 5); fore wing with tubular R vein (Figures 2, 5); T1 of female with horn (Figures 2, 5) 2
2 Skaphion present on mesoscutum (Figure 3) or absent; mesoscutellum transverse, not present as two distinct lobes (Figure 3); tubular R vein of fore wing straight (Figure 2); submedian carina and central keel present on frons (Figure 4) Oxyteleia Kieffer
– Skaphion absent on mesoscutum (Figure 5); mesoscutellum bisected by horn of T1, present as two distinct lobes (Figure 5); tubular R vein of fore wing bowed away from costal margin apically (Figure 5); submedian carina and central keel absent on frons Phoenoteleia Kieffer
Figure 1. 

Mallateleia sp., female (USNMENT01197942) 1 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view. Scale bar in millimeters.

Figures 2–4. 

Oxyteleia sp., female (USNMENT01197880) 2 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsolateral view 3 mesosoma, dorsal view 4 head, anterolateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 5, 6. 

Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, female (USNMENT01197920) 5 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 6 fore and hind wings, dorsal view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Key to species of Phoenoteleia (females)

1 Sculpture of vertex and dorsal frons sparsely punctate, with smooth areas between punctures (Figures 42, 44, 52, 54) 2
– Sculpture of vertex and frons rugose, transversely striate, or a combination of both (Figures 11, 13, 16, 29–32, 62) 3
2 Notaulus present (Figure 42); body black (Figures 42–44) Phoenoteleia kuboa Lahey, sp. nov.
– Notaulus absent (Figures 46, 49, 52); body reddish-brown (Figures 46–52) Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer
3 Sculpture of horn areolate throughout entire length or at least to transscutal articulation (Figures 11, 33, 36, 60) 4
– Sculpture of horn areolate basally, otherwise transversely aciculate throughout (Figures 21–24, 39) 7
4 Posteromedial surface of vertex declivous, surface sculpture effaced (Figure 36); lateral propodeal area without median area (Figure 36); clava 6-merous Phoenoteleia halua Lahey, sp. nov.
– Posteromedial surface of vertex evenly rounded or weakly declivous, surface sculpture continuous with vertex (Figures 11, 33, 60); lateral propodeal area with median area (Figures 11, 33, 60); clava 5-merous 5
5 Tergites 2 and 3 with weak longitudinal striae (Figure 33); body brown (Figures 33–35) Phoenoteleia gunnelsi Lahey, sp. nov.
– Tergites 2 and 3 with strong longitudinal striae (Figures 11, 63); body orange-yellow (Figures 11, 60) 6
6 Sculpture of frons transversely rugose (Figure 13); apical half of horn transversely aciculate (Figure 11) Phoenoteleia buka Lahey, sp. nov.
– Sculpture of frons rugose (Figure 62); horn areolate throughout (Figure 60) Phoenoteleia sanma Lahey, sp. nov.
7 Posteromedial surface of T5 nearly smooth (Figure 39); T6 distinctly lighter in color than T5 (Figure 39) Phoenoteleia kaca Lahey, sp. nov.
– Posteromedial surface of T5 punctate-granulate (Figures 21–24); T6 concolorous with or darker than T5 (Figures 20–24) Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd

Key to species of Phoenoteleia (males)

1 Notauli absent (Figures 56, 60) 2
– Notauli present (Figure 66) Phoenoteleia sp. A (Sri Lanka)
2 Triangular portion of propodeum longitudinally striate (Figure 14); mesoscutellum rugose (Figure 14) Phoenoteleia buka Lahey, sp. nov.
– Triangular portion of propodeum transversely rugose, sometimes with a single central carina (Figure 56); mesoscutellum granulate (Figure 56) Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer)
Figures 7–9. 

Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, female (OSUC 332073) 7 head, mesosoma, dorsal view 8 Horn of T1, S1, S2, ventral view 9 Horn of T1, T2, S1, S2, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Taxonomy

Phoenoteleia Kieffer

http://zoobank.org/E1987CA4-01FF-47E3-8A75-6606A1099249

Phoenoteleia Kieffer, 1916: 62 (original description. Type: Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer, by monotypy and original designation); Kieffer, 1926: 265, 550 (description, keyed); Dodd, 1929: 35 (description); Muesebeck and Walkley, 1956: 384 (citation of type species); Baltazar, 1966: 185 (cataloged, catalog of species of the Philippines); Masner, 1976: 31, 32 (description, key to males of Anteromorpha Dodd and Phoenoteleia Kieffer); Galloway and Austin, 1984: 7, 9, 20 (diagnosis, list of species described from Australia, keyed); Johnson, 1992: 460 (cataloged, catalog of world species); Austin and Field, 1997: 22, 68 (structure of ovipositor system, discussion of phylogenetic relationships).

Plagioscelio Kieffer, 1916: 185 (original description. Type: Plagioscelio rufescens Kieffer, by original designation. Synonymized by Masner (1976)); Kieffer, 1926: 266, 356 (description, keyed, key to species); Muesebeck and Walkley, 1956: 384 (citation of type species); Baltazar, 1966: 176 (cataloged, catalog of species of the Philippines); Masner, 1976: 32 (junior synonym of Phoenoteleia Kieffer).

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia can be distinguished from other scelionines by the following combination of characters: epitorular carinae present on frons; T1 of female always produced into an elongate horn which fits into a deep channel bisecting the metascutellum, mesoscutellum, and at least the posterior portion of the mesoscutum; venter of horn membranous; T1 with armilla; T2 clearly longer than T3; central portion of propodeum triangular, in same plane as mesoscutum, mesoscutellum, and metascutellum (male only); submarginal vein strongly curving towards costal margin of fore wing apically; marginal vein distinctly shorter than stigmal vein; postmarginal vein at least twice as long as stigmal vein; basitarsus on hind leg at least twice as long as combined length of remaining tarsomeres, distinctly incrassate in males.

Description

Length 2.21–3.95 mm; body elongate, gracile to robust.

Head . Head shape in dorsal view: transverse. Hyperoccipital carina: absent. Occipital carina: present, complete. Length of OOL: lateral ocellus < 1 OD from inner margin of compound eye. Shape of upper frons: convex. Antennal scrobe: undifferentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Submedian carina: absent. Orbital carina: absent. Course of inner orbits: diverging ventrally. IOS/EH: IOS shorter than EH. Central keel: absent. Antennal foramen: oriented laterally on interantennal process. Facial striae: present. Malar striae: present. Malar sulcus: present. Setation of compound eye: present, short. Gena: convex, distinctly produced behind compound eye. Shape of clypeus: convex, trapezoidal, lateral corners not produced. Ventral margin of clypeus: rounded. Anteclypeus: absent. Postclypeus: absent. Labrum: transverse, visible anteriorly. Number of mandibular teeth: 3. Arrangement of mandibular teeth: transverse. Number of maxillary palpomeres: 3. Shape of maxillary palpomeres: cylindrical. Number of labial palpomeres: 2. Sculpture of occiput: granulate.

Antenna . Number of antennomeres in female: 12. Number of antennomeres in male: 12. Insertion of radicle into A1: parallel to longitudinal axis of A1. Shape of A1: more or less cylindrical, not flattened. Length of A3 of female: longer than A2, approximately as long or slightly longer than radicle. Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1; 1-2-2-2-2; 1-2-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5; 6. Arrangement of papillary sensilla: longitudinal. Antennomeres bearing tyloids in male antenna: A5. Shape of male flagellum: filiform.

Mesosoma . Transverse pronotal carina: present. Posterior apex of pronotum in dorsal view: articulate with tegula. Epomial carina: present. Anterior face of pronotum: visible dorsally, short. Netrion: present. Shape of netrion: wide, closed dorsally, open ventrally. Netrion sulcus: present. Anterior portion of mesoscutum: vertical, flexed ventrally to meet pronotum. Shape of mesoscutum: pentagonal, excavate at base of wings. Skaphion: absent. Parapsidial lines: absent; present. Antero-admedian lines: absent. Transscutal articulation: developed, narrow. Shape of mesoscutellum: transverse, present lateral to horn of T1 in females, complete in males. Transaxillar carina: present. Axillular carina: present. Lateral mesoscutellar spine: absent. Median mesoscutellar spine: absent. Axillular spine: absent. Surface of mesoscutellum: in same plane as mesoscutum. Median longitudinal furrow on mesoscutellum: absent. Metascutellum: transverse, lateral to horn of T1 in females, complete in males. Setation of metascutellum: absent. Lateral propodeal projection: absent. Medial portion of metascutellum in males: plate-like triangular, elevated relative to lateral portions. Median propodeal projection: absent. Subacropleural sulcus: present, indicated by a dorsoventral line of setae. Mesopleural carina: present. Mesepimeral sulcus: present. Posterior mesepimeral area: present. Sculpture of posterior mesepimeral area: smooth. Mesal course of acetabular carina: not separating fore coxae. Mesopleural pit: present. Metapleural sulcus: present. Paracoxal sulcus: present.

Legs . Number of mesotibial spurs: 1. Number of metatibial spurs: 1. Relative length of metabasitarsus: at least twice the length of remaining tarsomeres. Dorsal surface of metacoxa: smooth. Shape of metacoxa: cylindrical, ecarinate. Trochantellus: indicated by transverse sulcus on femur.

Wings . Wing development of female: macropterous. Wing development of male: macropterous. Tubular veins in fore wing: present. Setation of R vein: present, sparse, long. Bulla of fore wing R vein: absent. Length of marginal vein of fore wing: at least 2 times shorter than stigmal vein. Origin of stigmal vein (r-rs) in fore wing: arising from marginal vein along costal margin. Development of R vein in hind wing: complete, reaching frenal hooks.

Metasoma . Number of external metasomal tergites in female: 6. Number of external metasomal sternites in female: 6. Number of external metasomal tergites in male: 8. Number of external metasomal sternites in male: 7. Shape of metasoma: fusiform, narrowly constricted between T1 and T2 in females. Laterotergites: present. Laterosternites: present. T1 of female: produced into an elongate horn that bisects the metascutellum, mesoscutellum, and at least the posterior margin of the mesoscutum. Armilla: present. Relative size of metasomal terga: T2 longest (excluding horn of T1 in females), T3 longer than T4. Transverse sulcus on T2: present. Metasomal terga with basal crenulae: T2 in females, T1 and T2 in males. Sublateral carinae on metasomal terga: present. Median longitudinal carina on metasomal terga: absent. Shape of T6 in female: widest anteriorly. Anterior margin of S1: straight, not produced anteriorly. Felt fields on S2: present. Felt fields on S3: absent. Ovipositor: Scelio-type (Austin and Field 1997).

Generic transfer of Phoenoteleia fusca (Kieffer)

Dicroscelio fuscus (Kieffer), comb. nov.

http://zoobank.org/7A8251D8-5870-4F3E-8932-A945B158733D

Plagioscelio fuscus Kieffer, 1916: 187 (original description); Kieffer, 1926: 356, 357 (description, figured, keyed); Baltazar, 1966: 176 (cataloged, distribution).

Phoenoteleia fusca (Kieffer): Johnson, 1992: 461 (cataloged).

Comments

Kieffer (1916) described Plagioscelio fuscus (=Phoenoteleia fusca) for a single male collected in the Philippines. As far as we know, the type was never examined by anyone other than Kieffer and the specimen was never deposited in MNHN, the primary repository of his Hymenopteran type material. The single line drawing of the metasoma (Kieffer 1926; Suppl. material 2) and certain morphological characters mentioned in the original description shed doubt on the placement of this species within Phoenoteleia. Instead, we propose that this species is more appropriately placed within Dicroscelio Kieffer, a cosmopolitan genus well represented in Southeast Asia (Kieffer 1913; Masner 1976; Yoder et al. 2009). Kieffer’s drawing of the metasoma (incorrectly labeled as female!) conforms with that of a Dicroscelio species from New Caledonia (OSUC 185966; Suppl. material 2). Similarly, his description of the wing venation, structure of the metanotum, and length of the metabasitarsus is indicative of certain members of Dicroscelio and excludes Phoenoteleia as a potential option for the placement of this species. It is important to note that we are not identifying this Dicroscelio specimen as P. fusca. We are simply making a comparison between this specimen and the description of P. fusca given by Kieffer (1916).

Species description

Phoenoteleia buka Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/1D90BE9E-1AA2-4C32-952F-3F9622D7B621
Figures 11–13, 14–16

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A6 light brown, A7–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: concolorous with clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: radicle and A1–A8 orange, A9 light brown, A10–A12 brown. Color of head: light orange. Color of mesosoma: mostly orange, darker on mesoscutum lateral to horn. Color of metasoma: horn orange apically, becoming progressively darker posteriorly; T1 posterior to armilla burnt orange; T2–T3 orange; T4 burnt orange; T5–T6 nearly brown. Color of legs: becoming progressively darker distally. Setation of frons: short, sparse. Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Sculpture of frons: transversely rugose. Sculpture of vertex: sharply areolate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of gena: rugose. Length of LOL: < 1 OD. Length of POL: three times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate. Sculpture of netrion: transversely striate. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: longitudinally areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: two times wider than length, unsculptured, lateral corner acute. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: punctate. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth throughout. Setation of ventral metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: areolate-rugose basally and along margin of armilla, otherwise transversely aciculate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: longitudinally striate throughout, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate throughout, interstices reticulate medially, granulate laterally. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate laterally, granulate medially. Sculpture of T5: smooth. Sculpture of T6: smooth. Length of T6 in female: 1.5 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres.

Figure 10. 

Geographic distribution of the Phoenoteleia species treated in this revision. Stars denote holotype localities for P. canalis and P. rufa.

Figures 11–13. 

Phoenoteleia buka Lahey, female holotype (FBA136312) 11 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 12 mesosoma, lateral view 13 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 14–16. 

Phoenoteleia buka Lahey, male paratype (FBA136318) 14 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 15 mesosoma, lateral view 16 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia buka sp. nov. comes closest to P. sanma sp. nov. from which it differs by having the frons transversely rugose and the apical surface of the T1 horn with aciculate sculpture. Other characters that allow for its recognition include the darkened T5 and T6, and the margins of the median channel that are distinctly elevated relative to the lateral mesoscutum. The male of P. buka sp. nov. shares the transversely rugose sculpture on the frons and is easily separated other Phoenoteleia males by the rugose mesoscutellum.

Etymology

Buka is the Fijian word for fire and is used to refer to the coloration of this species. The epithet is treated as a noun in apposition.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Fiji: Central Div., Rewa Prov., Viti Levu Isl., 3.5km N Veisari Settlement, MT3, 300m, 18.068°S, 178.367°E, logging road to Waivudawa, 14.II–8.III.2003, Malaise trap, E. Schlinger & M. Tokota’a, FBA136312 (deposited in BPBM). Paratypes: Fiji: 3 females, 1 male, FBA136316, FBA136318 (BPBM); FBA136327 (CNCI); FBA136330 (OSUC).

Comments

The vertex is slightly declivous in females, most likely due to the length of the horn which surpasses the anterior margin of the mesoscutum.

Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd

http://zoobank.org/4B75D182-A436-41B1-9E79-7CD9ED997C91
Figures 5–6, 7–9, 17–20, 21–24, 25–28, 29–32

Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, 1929: 35 (original description); Galloway, 1976: 101 (type information); Johnson, 1992: 461 (cataloged, type information).

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1; 1-2-2-2-2. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A7 light brown, A8–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: distinctly lighter than clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: mostly orange, interocellar space and most of vertex brown. Color of mesosoma: reddish-brown. Color of metasoma: reddish-brown. Color of legs: light yellow-brown, fore legs darkest. Setation of frons: short, sparse. Sculpture of frons: punctate-rugose dorsally, transversely striate ventrally. Sculpture of vertex: punctate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of gena: longitudinally striate. Length of LOL: < 1 OD. Length of POL: < two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: rugose. Sculpture of netrion: transversely striate. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: absent; present. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: twice as wide as long, unsculptured, lateral corner acute. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: transversely rugose. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: smooth dorsomedially, otherwise punctate-rugose. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: present posteriorly. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum; reaching middle of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: rugose basally, otherwise faintly transversely aciculate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: rugose medially, longitudinally striate laterally, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate throughout most of length, interstices rugose, posteromedially granulate. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate laterally, faintly granulate medially; longitudinally striate laterally, granulate medially. Sculpture of T5: weakly longitudinally striate laterally, faintly granulate medially; weakly longitudinally striate laterally, punctate medially. Sculpture of T6: faintly granulate; punctate. Length of T6 in female: 1.5 times maximum width; 1.25 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres; 2 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Figures 17–20. 

Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, female holotype (QMTYPE Hy3293) 17 mesosoma, dorsal view 18 mesosoma, dorsal view 19 mesosoma, lateral view 20 mesosoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia canalis is separated from its congeners by the rugose frons, concolorous T5 and T6, and the horn which is areolate-rugose basally and aciculate throughout most of its length.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Australia: QLD, Dunk Island, VIII-1927, H. Hacker, QM TYPE Hy/3293 (deposited in QM). Other material: Brunei: OSUC 332072 (CNCI); OSUC 332088 (OSUC); Indonesia: OSUC 181592, 332115–332117, 491273 (ROME); OSUC 331984, 331985, 332067, 332069, 332081–332083, 332096, 332118 (BMNH); OSUC 332068, 332073–332078, 332080, 332084, 332085, 332115 (CNCI); OSUC 332070, 332079, 332086; Malaysia: OSUC 149608, 202439 (AEIC); OSUC 332087, 332089–332092, 332094, 332095, 332119–332122, 491275 (CNCI); OSUC 332093, 491274 (OSUC); Papua New Guinea: OSUC 331968, 331969, 331972–331978, 331980–331983 (CNCI); OSUC 331970, 331971, 331979 (OSUC); Thailand: OSUC 361388 (OSUC); OSUC 361389 (CNCI).

Figures 21–24. 

Phenotypic variation within female Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, habitus, dorsal view 21 Indonesia, West Java (OSUC 332116) 22 Brunei, Belait District (OSUC 332072) 23 Papua New Guinea, New Britain Province (OSUC 331975) 24 Papua New Guinea, Milne Bay Province (OSUC 331983). Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 25–28. 

Phenotypic variation within female Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, mesosoma, lateral view 25 Indonesia, West Java (OSUC 332116) 26 Brunei, Belait District (OSUC 332072) 27 Papua New Guinea, New Britain Province (OSUC 331975) 28 Papua New Guinea, Milne Bay Province (OSUC 331983). Scale bars in millimeters.

Comments

Dodd (1929) described P. canalis for a single female specimen collected on Dunk Island in Queensland, Australia. The holotype is in relatively good condition, despite the mesosoma and metasoma having become separated. The head, however, has been missing for over 40 years (Galloway 1976), precluding our ability to examine what is perhaps the most important tagma for species level identification of Phoenoteleia. Dodd’s description of the cephalic characters of P. canalis provides enough detail to reliably separate it from P. halua sp. nov., P. kuboa sp. nov., and P. rufa, and its constellation of somal characters is incongruent with the remainder of the species treated in this revision.

Our concept of P. canalis is that it is a highly variable, widespread species. We documented morphological variation between P. canalis populations from Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Thailand (Figures 21–32). The most glaring morphological difference is the length of the horn, a character we have found to be highly variable in the type species of the genus (P. rufa). Specimens of P. canalis ranged in color from reddish-purple to light orange-brown. Dodd (1929) described the color of this species as bright red-brown, but images of the holotype suggest that its color has faded considerably over the past century. Such fading could explain the variation in color between specimens.

While this article was in press, a collaborator (Dr. Ovidiu Popovici, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași, Romania) provided the first author with images of two female Phoenoteleia specimens that match our concept of P. canalis. One of the specimens is part of a long series from Sulawesi collected by Dr. John Noyes, and the other is from Australia. The Australian specimen is the second Phoenoteleia known to us from that continent and is virtually identical to a female we examined from Milne Bay Province in Papua New Guinea (OSUC 331983; Figures 24, 28, 32).

Figures 29–32. 

Phenotypic variation within female Phoenoteleia canalis Dodd, head, anterior view 29 Indonesia, West Java (OSUC 332116) 30 Brunei, Belait District (OSUC 332072) 31 Papua New Guinea, New Britain Province (OSUC 331975) 32 Papua New Guinea, Milne Bay Province (OSUC 331983). Scale bars in millimeters.

Transcribed data labels for these specimens are included below. Both specimens are deposited in the OPPC.

Australia: Queensland; Daintree; James Cook University, rainforest site; 16°06'11.53"S, 145°27'13.08"E; alt. 19m; 19.viii–9.ix.2014; leg. D. Rentz & P. Tripotin (MT).

Sulawesi: Utara; Dumoga-Bone N.P. Toraut; 220m; 9–16.v.1985, leg. J.S. Noyes [voucher specimen used by Popovici et al. 2017 to illustrate the mouthparts of Phoenoteleia].

Phoenoteleia gunnelsi Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/F4587DAC-5FFE-4D66-9EAA-0701285E86C6
Figures 33–35

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A7 light brown, A8–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: distinctly lighter than clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: reddish-brown. Color of mesosoma: reddish-brown. Color of metasoma: reddish-brown. Color of legs: becoming progressively darker distally. Setation of frons: long, sparse. Sculpture of frons: punctate-rugose dorsally, transversely striate ventrally. Sculpture of vertex: punctate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of gena: longitudinally striate. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate. Sculpture of netrion: transversely rugose. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate posteriorly. Form of metascutellum: twice as wide as long, foveolate. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: smooth dorsomedially, otherwise punctate-rugose. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: unsculptured apically, otherwise areolate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: longitudinally striate throughout, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally weak medially, replaced by areolate surface sculpture, interstices areolate-rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate, interstices areolate. Sculpture of T4: finely longitudinally striate, otherwise areolate. Sculpture of T5: longitudinally striate throughout, interstices punctate. Sculpture of T6: punctate. Length of T6 in female: 1.5 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia gunnelsi sp. nov. most closely resembles P. halua sp. nov. due to similarities in their coloration, size, and length of the horn on T1. Noticeable differences include the sculpture of the vertex, number of clavomeres, and presence of the median area on the lateral propodeal area.

Etymology

Named for Dr. Charles W. Gunnels IV (Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida) in recognition of his generosity, zeal for teaching, and love for the natural world. The epithet is treated as a noun in the genitive case.

Figures 33–35. 

Phoenoteleia gunnelsi Lahey, female holotype (OSUC 359935) 33 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 34 mesosoma, lateral view 35 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Indonesia: Seram, Maluku, 10 km NW Waisarisa, 3°S, 128°E, 300m, 17–25 Jan 1995, DC Darling IIS 950006 | Universitas Pattimura Forest Area, 2° forest selectively logged, 1983, Malaise trap – no pans, Light gap, clearing, OSUC 359935 (deposited in MZB).

Comments

We erect this species for a single female specimen. Our first consideration when treating this species was that is represented variation within P. halua sp. nov.; however, the differences between this specimen and P. halua sp. nov. exceed the range of morphological variation observed within other species of the genus. It is for this reason that we feel justified in describing P. gunnelsi sp. nov.

Phoenoteleia halua Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/B9F8B02B-AA05-4C23-A04A-3E0636BEBD44
Figures 36–38

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 6. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A6 light yellow, A7–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: concolorous with clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: reddish-brown. Color of mesosoma: reddish-brown. Color of metasoma: reddish-brown. Color of legs: light yellow-brown, fore legs darkest. Setation of frons: short, sparse. Sculpture of frons: punctate-rugose dorsally, transversely striate ventrally. Sculpture of vertex: punctate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: present. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: smooth. Sculpture of gena: rugose. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate. Sculpture of netrion: transversely rugose. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: absent medially. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate posteriorly. Form of metascutellum: twice as long as wide, unsculptured. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: absent. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: transversely rugose. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: smooth dorsomedially, otherwise punctate-rugose. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: areolate-rugose basally and along margin of armilla, otherwise transversely aciculate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: transversely striate-rugose medially, longitudinally striate laterally, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally weak medially, replaced by areolate surface sculpture, interstices areolate-rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate, interstices areolate. Sculpture of T4: transversely striate laterally, faintly areolate medially. Sculpture of T5: weakly longitudinally striate laterally, punctate medially. Sculpture of T6: punctate. Length of T6 in female: 1.25 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Figures 36–38. 

Phoenoteleia halua Lahey, female holotype (OSUC 359932) 36 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 37 mesosoma, lateral view 38 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

Three characters are unique to P. halua sp. nov.: (1) the posterior vertex is excavated and devoid of surface sculpture; (2) the clava is 6-merous; and (3) the median area on the lateral propodeal area is absent. Otherwise, P. halua sp. nov. is most likely to be confused with P. gunnelsi sp. nov. based on its size and habitus similarities.

Etymology

The species name is taken from the Indonesian word for smooth, in reference to the sculpture of the declivity on the vertex. The epithet is treated as a noun in apposition.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Indonesia: W. Kalimantan Gunung Palung Nat. Pk. 15 JUN-15 AUG 1991 Darling, Rosichon, Sutrisno | Cabang Panti Res. Sta. 1 rainforest.100–400m Alluvial light gap 1°15'S, 110°5'E Malaise trap head IIS 910122, OSUC 359932 (deposited in MZB). Paratypes: Indonesia: 2 females, OSUC 359933 (CNCI); 359934 (ROME).

Comments

The three females that comprise the type series are virtually identical.

Phoenoteleia kaca Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/223FD7FF-717C-41DE-99F3-87A4F980ED8E
Figures 39–41

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A7 yellow, A8–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: distinctly lighter than clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: light yellow anteriorly, light yellow anterodorsally, burnt orange posterodorsally. Color of mesosoma: light yellow-orange laterally, burnt orange-brown dorsally. Color of metasoma: T1 including horn orange apically, becoming progressively darker posteriorly; T2-T4 brown laterally, burnt orange-orange sublaterally, brown medially; T5 mostly brown, yellow-orange anterolaterally; T6 orange. Color of legs: coxae, trochanters, femurs light yellow; tibiae orange; tarsi burnt orange-brown. Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Setation of frons: long, moderate. Sculpture of frons: areolate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of vertex: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of gena: rugose. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: rugose. Sculpture of netrion: transversely rugose. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: present. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: twice as long as wide, unsculptured. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: transversely rugose. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: dense. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: punctate. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: rugose. Length of horn on T1: reaching middle of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: areolate-rugose basally and along margin of armilla, otherwise transversely aciculate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: rugose medially, longitudinally striate laterally, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate throughout most of length, interstices rugose, posteromedially granulate. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate laterally, granulate medially. Sculpture of T5: weakly longitudinally striate laterally, smooth throughout remainder. Sculpture of T6: smooth. Length of T6 in female: 1.25 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 3 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Figures 39–41. 

Phoenoteleia kaca Lahey, female holotype (OSUC 359936) 39 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 40 mesosoma, lateral view 41 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia kaca sp. nov. can be distinguished from other species in the genus by having T5 smooth and T6 lighter than T5.

Etymology

Kaca is the Indonesian word for glass and is used to reference the appearance of T5. The epithet is treated as a noun in apposition.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Malaysia: Sabah: Danum Valley, Silam Rd. km 57, XI.86, MT, P. Eggleton, OSUC 359936 (deposited in CNCI). Paratypes: Indonesia: 10 females, OSUC 256840 (ROME); OSUC 359937–359942, 359945 (CNCI); OSUC 359943, 359944 (OSUC).

Phoenoteleia kuboa Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/F0D01A7F-6B35-40E8-B9ED-6844187A4171
Figures 42–44

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A6 light brown, A7–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: concolorous with clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: black. Color of mesosoma: black. Color of metasoma: black. Color of legs: dark yellowish-brown, coxae darkest. Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Setation of frons: short, sparse. Sculpture of frons: sparsely punctate ventrolaterally and dorsally, unsculptured medially. Sculpture of vertex: sparsely puncate anteriorly, mostly smooth posteriorly except for short, longitudinal striae posteromedially. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: longitudinally striate. Sculpture of gena: sparsely punctate dorsally, longitudinally striate ventrally. Length of LOL: 3 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: transversely punctate. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate. Sculpture of netrion: transversely striate. Notaulus: present. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: present. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: present. Sculpture of mesoscutum: mostly smooth; coriaceous adjacent to notaulus between median channel. Parapsidial line: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: absent medially. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate posteriorly. Form of metascutellum: twice as long as wide, foveolate. Sculpture of propodeum: lateral propodeal area smooth; plical area rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: canaliculate anteromedially, otherwise smooth. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth throughout. Setation of ventral metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: rugose basally, otherwise faintly transversely aciculate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: transversely striate medially, longitudinally striate laterally. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate laterally, faintly granulate medially. Sculpture of T5: weakly longitudinally striate laterally, faintly granulate medially. Sculpture of T6: faintly granulate. Length of T6 in female: 1.5 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 3 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Figures 42–44. 

Phoenoteleia kuboa Lahey, female holotype (FBA040453) 42 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 43 mesosoma, lateral view 44 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

The presence of notauli on the mesoscutum and/or the completely smooth frons can be used to distinguish P. kuboa sp. nov. from other members of the genus.

Etymology

The epithet was inspired by the Fijian word for smoke (kubou) and is intended to be treated as a noun in apposition.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Fiji: Northern Div., Bua Prov., Vanua Levu Isl., FJ-58A, 146m, 16°48.927'S 178°59.110'E, Kilaka Village, 3.VI–10.VI.2004, Malaise trap, M. Irwin, E. Schlinger & M. Tokota’a, FBA040453 (deposited in BPBM). Paratypes: Fiji: 1 female, FBA047851 (CNCI).

Figures 45–48. 

Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer, female holotype (MNHN 0025) 45 mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 46 mesosoma, dorsal view 47 mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 48 mesosoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer

http://zoobank.org/098F839B-1E69-4170-A3FD-7E704FA492DF
Figures 45–48, 49–51, 52–54

Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer, 1916: 63 (original description); Kieffer, 1926: 551 (description); Baltazar, 1966: 185 (cataloged, type information, distribution); Johnson, 1992: 461 (cataloged, type information).

Phoenateleia rufa Kieffer: Kelner-Pillault, 1958: 151 (type information, spelling error).

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A7 yellow, A8–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: distinctly lighter than clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: reddish-brown. Color of mesosoma: reddish-brown. Color of metasoma: reddish-brown. Color of legs: light yellow-brown, fore legs darkest. Setation of frons: short, sparse. Sculpture of frons: transversely rugose ventrally, smooth dorsally, punctate throughout. Sculpture of vertex: punctate throughout, mostly smooth, reticulate along margin of inner eye and minute, transverse sulci between punctures posteriorly. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of gena: punctate throughout, longitudinally rugose ventrally, granulate dorsally. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate medially, rugose ventrally, granulate dorsolaterally. Sculpture of netrion: transversely striate. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: punctate throughout, rugose posterolaterally and along margins, granulate anteromedially. Parapsidial line: present. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: twice as wide as long, unsculptured, lateral corner acute. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: transversely rugose. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: dense. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: punctate. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: present posteriorly. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: punctate posteriorly, otherwise smooth. Length of horn on T1: reaching middle of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: areolate-rugose basally and along margin of armilla, reticulate apically. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: transversely striate-rugose medially, longitudinally striate laterally, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate throughout most of length, interstices rugose, posteromedially granulate. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate laterally, granulate medially. Sculpture of T5: weakly longitudinally striate laterally, faintly granulate medially. Sculpture of T6: punctate. Length of T6 in female: 1.25 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres.

Figures 49–51. 

Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer, female (OSUC 376916) 49 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 50 mesosoma, lateral view 51 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 52–54. 

Phoenoteleia rufa Kieffer, female (OSUC 359930) 52 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 53 mesosoma, lateral view 54 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

Phoenoteleia rufa is most similar to P. canalis from which is can be separated by the sculpture of the frons and vertex.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Philippines: Mindanao Isl., Butuan Chartered City, Baker, MNHN 0025 (deposited in MNHN). Other material: Philippines: 2 females, OSUC 359931 (ROME); OSUC 376916 (MCZC). Taiwan: 2 females, OSUC 359929, 359930 (CNCI).

Comments

Kieffer (1916) proposed the genus Phoenoteleia for a single female collected in the Philippines. The head of the holotype is missing (Baltazar 1966), but the meso- and metasoma are in good condition. We examined four specimens that we consider conspecific with the holotype; two are from the Philippines and two are from Taiwan. Additional specimens of P. rufa have been collected from the Amami Islands, part of the Ryukyu Island chain, in Japan (Y. Komeda, personal communication). The Japanese material represents the most northernly distribution of the genus.

Figures 55–58. 

Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer), male holotype (MNHN 0026) 55 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 56 head, mesosoma, dorsal view 57 head, mesosoma, metasoma, lateral view 58 head, mesosoma, lateral view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer)

http://zoobank.org/156FFD2A-9558-4BAD-ABD4-D2ED3A1E4C2A
Figures 55–58, 59

Plagioscelio rufescens Kieffer, 1916: 186 (original description); Kieffer, 1926: 356, 357 (description, keyed); Kelner-Pillault, 1958: 151 (type information); Baltazar, 1966: 177 (cataloged, type information, distribution).

Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer): Masner, 1976: 33 (generic transfer); Johnson, 1992: 461 (cataloged, type information).

Description

Color of antenna in female: unknown. Color of antenna in male: radicle and A1–A6 lighter than A7–A12. Color of head: light orange. Color of mesosoma: mostly reddish-brown, with lighter areas on mesoscutum, mesopleuron, netrion, and pronotum. Color of metasoma: mostly reddish-brown, except for T3 and T4 which are lighter throughout most of their length. Color of legs: light yellow-brown, fore legs darkest. Setation of frons: long, sparse. Sculpture of frons: transversely rugose ventrally, smooth dorsally, punctate throughout. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Notaulus: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: present. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: transverse. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: dense. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: present posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: present posteriorly. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: transversely rugose anterodorsally, otherwise smooth. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres.

Figure 59. 

Phoenoteleia rufescens (Kieffer), male holotype (MNHN 0026) head, anterior view. Scale bar in millimeters.

Diagnosis

The granulate mesoscutellum and sculpture of the triangular propodeal plate distinguishes P. rufescens from the male of P. buka sp. nov. We did not observe any characters that would reliably separate P. rufescens from the male of P. canalis.

Material examined

Holotype, male: Philippines: Mindanao Isl., Butuan Chartered City, Baker, MNHN 0026 (deposited in MNHN).

Comments

The holotypes of P. rufescens and P. rufa were collected on the Philippine island of Mindanao in Butuan, probably as part of the same collecting event. This led Masner (1976) to suggest that P. rufescens is the male of P. rufa. This is probably true, but we refrain from synonymizing P. rufescens with P. rufa because we did not physically examine the holotype, and the male is indistinguishable from specimens of the same sex that were collected from locations where P. rufa females were not examined (Figures 63–65, 69–74).

Figures 60–62. 

Phoenoteleia sanma Lahey, female holotype (OSUC 192538) 60 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 61 mesosoma, lateral view 62 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

In the original description of P. rufescens, Kieffer (1916) stated that the rear ocelli are separated from the inner margin of the compound eye by twice their diameter. Images of the holotype show this is not the case: the rear ocelli appear to be positioned less than 1 OD from the inner margin of the compound eye (Figure 56). Kieffer (1916) also mentioned that the postmarginal vein (postmarginalis) of the fore wing is absent. This is incorrect. Like all Phoenoteleia, the postmarginal vein of P. rufescens is at least twice as long as the stigmal vein.

Phoenoteleia sanma Lahey, sp. nov.

http://zoobank.org/5CEFC24D-EE0E-4A6B-B873-99194DA74003
Figures 60–62

Description

Claval formula: 1-2-2-2-1. Number of clavomeres: 5. Color of antenna in female: radicle and A1–A7 light brown, A8–A12 brown. Color of A7 of female: distinctly lighter than clavomeres. Color of antenna in male: unknown. Color of head: light orange. Color of mesosoma: mostly orange, darker on mesoscutum lateral to horn. Color of metasoma: horn orange apically, becoming progressively darker posteriorly; T1 posterior to armilla burnt orange; T2–T3 orange; T4 burnt orange; T5–T6 nearly brown. Color of legs: becoming progressively darker distally. Setation of frons: long, moderate. Sculpture of frons: punctate-rugose. Sculpture of vertex: sharply areolate-rugose. Excavation on posteromedial vertex: absent. Sculpture of posteromedial vertex: same as remainder of vertex. Sculpture of gena: punctate-rugose. Length of LOL: 1 OD. Length of POL: two times as long as LOL. Sculpture of dorsal pronotal area: areolate-rugose. Sculpture of lateral pronotal area: transversely striate. Sculpture of netrion: transversely striate. Notaulus: absent. Mesoscutal humeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Mesoscutal suprahumeral sulcus: not clearly differentiated from surrounding surface sculpture. Sculpture of mesoscutum: areolate-rugose. Parapsidial line: absent. Setation of mesoscutellum: absent medially. Sculpture of mesoscutellum: granulate throughout. Form of metascutellum: twice as wide as long, unsculptured, lateral corner acute. Sculpture of propodeum: rugose. Setation of plical area: present. Median area of the lateral propodeal area: present. Sculpture of mesofemoral depression: smooth anteriorly, punctate-foveolate posteroventrally. Setation of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: sparse. Sculpture of mesepisternum ventral to mesofemoral depression: punctate. Setation of dorsal metapleural area: absent. Sculpture of dorsal metapleural area: smooth anteriorly, rugose posteriorly. Setation of ventral metapleural area: present posteriorly. Sculpture of ventral metapleural area: foveolate-rugose. Length of horn on T1: reaching apex of mesoscutum. Sculpture of horn on T1: unsculptured apically, otherwise areolate. Sculpture of T1 posterior to armilla: longitudinally striate throughout, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T2: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T3: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T4: longitudinally striate, interstices rugose. Sculpture of T5: smooth. Sculpture of T6: punctate. Length of T6 in female: 1.25 times maximum width. Relative length of hind basitarsus in female: 2.5 times as long as remaining tarsomeres. Relative length of hind basitarsus in male: unknown.

Figures 63–65. 

Phoenoteleia sp. nr. rufescens, male (OSUC 359926; Maluku, Indonesia) 63 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 64 mesosoma, lateral view 65 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 66–68. 

Phoenoteleia sp. A, male (OSUC 359927; Kandy, Sri Lanka) 66 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 67 mesosoma, lateral view 68 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Diagnosis

The sculpture of the frons, horn of T1, and ventral metapleural area distinguishes P. sanma sp. nov. from its closest relative, P. buka sp. nov.

Etymology

The epithet refers to the collection locality (Sanma Province, Vanuatu) and is meant to be treated as a noun in apposition.

Material examined

Holotype, female: Vanuatu: Santo Island, Penaoru 900B ~ 900m, 18–30.xi.06, moist lowland forest ground, C. Villemant, MT, MG09B2, DNA Voucher N116, OSUC 192538 (deposited in MNHN).

Figures 69–71. 

Phoenoteleia sp. nr. rufescens, male (OSUC 331982; Milne Bay, Papua New Guinea) 69 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 70 mesosoma, lateral view 71 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Figures 72–74. 

Phoenoteleia sp. nr. rufescens, male (OSUC 232280; East Kalimantan, Indonesia) 72 head, mesosoma, metasoma, dorsal view 73 mesosoma, lateral view 74 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

Comments

We describe this new species for a single female and the only specimen collected on the island nation of Vanuatu. The holotype is in excellent condition but A9–A12 are missing from the right antenna.

Acknowledgements

We thank Sara Hemly (OSUC) for critical assistance with specimen handling and databasing. Dr. Elijah Talamas (Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Gainesville, Florida) is acknowledged for providing the image used in Figure 6 and for constructive comments on Dicroscelio. Dr. Yoto Komeda (Teiso Kasei Co. Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan) is thanked for discussions on the distribution of the genus, providing images of Phoenoteleia rufa from Japan, and for his careful critique that improved the quality of the manuscript. We thank Dr. Ovidiu Popovici (Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Iași, Romania) for providing images of P. canalis from Australia and Sulawesi and for allowing us to publish collection data associated with those specimens. Lastly, we thank the collectors for their efforts in capturing these magnificent animals.

References

  • Austin AD, Field SA (1997) The ovipositor system of scelionid and platygastrid wasps (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea): comparative morphology and phylogenetic implications. Invertebrate Systematics 11: 1–87. https://doi.org/10.1071/IT95048
  • Baltazar CR (1966) A catalogue of Philippine Hymenoptera (with a bibliography, 1758–1963). Pacific Insects Monographs 8: 1–466.
  • Bin F (1981) Definition of female antennal clava based on its plate sensilla in Hymenoptera Scelionidae Telenominae. Redia 64: 245–261.
  • Dodd AP (1929) A revision of four genera of Australian Scelionidae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 40: 30–50.
  • Galloway ID (1976) The types of Australian species of the subfamily Scelioninae (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animals Sciences 33: 83–114.
  • Kieffer JJ (1913) Proctotrupidae, Cynipidae et Evaniidae. Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale (1911–1912). Résultats scientifiques. Hyménoptères 1: 1–35.
  • Kieffer JJ (1916) Neue Scelioniden aus den Philippinen-Inseln. Brotéria 14: 58–187.
  • Kieffer JJ (1926) Scelionidae. Das Tierreich. Vol. 48. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 885 pp.
  • Lahey Z, Talamas E, Masner L, Johnson NF (2021) Revision of the Australian genus Alfredella Masner & Huggert (Hymenoptera, Platygastridae, Sceliotrachelinae). In: Lahey Z, Talamas E (Eds) Advances in the Systematics of Platygastroidea III. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 87: 81–113. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.87.58368
  • Masner L (1976) Revisionary notes and keys to world genera of Scelionidae (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 97: 1–87. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm10897fv
  • Masner L (1980) Key to genera of Scelionidae of the Holarctic region, with descriptions of new genera and species (Hymenoptera: Proctotrupoidea). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 113: 1–54. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm112113fv
  • Mikó I, Vilhelmsen L, Johnson NF, Masner L, Pénzes Z (2007) Skeletomusculature of Scelionidae (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea): head and mesosoma. Zootaxa 1571: 1–78. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.1571.1.1
  • Mikó I, Masner L, Ulmer JM, Raymond M, Hobbie J, Tarasov S, Margaría CB, Seltmann KC, Talamas EJ (2021) A semantically enriched taxonomic revision of Gryonoides Dodd, 1920 (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), with a review of the hosts of Teleasinae. In: Lahey Z, Talamas E (Eds) Advances in the Systematics of Platygastroidea III. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 87: 523–573. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.87.72931
  • Popovici OA, Vilhelmsen L, Masner L, Mikó I, Johnson N (2017) Maxillolabial complex in scelionids (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea): morphology and phylogenetic implications. Insect Systematics & Evolution 48: 315–439. https://doi.org/10.1163/1876312X-48022156
  • Talamas EJ, Buffington ML (2015) Fossil Platygastroidea in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 47: 1–52. https://doi.org/10.3897/JHR.47.5730
  • Talamas EJ, Johnson NF, Buffington ML, Dong R (2016) Archaeoteleia Masner in the Cretaceous and a new species of Proteroscelio Brues (Hymenoptera, Platygastroidea). In: Talamas EJ, Buffington ML (Eds) Advances in the Systematics of Platygastroidea. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 56: 241–261. https://doi.org/10.3897/jhr.56.10388
  • Yang SY, Zhong YZ, Zhang JP, Wang XP, Zhang F (2016) A Comparative scanning electron microscopy study on antennal sensilla of Trissolcus japonicus and Trissolcus plautiae, egg parasitoids of stink bugs (Pentatomidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 109: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/sav104
  • Yoder MJ, Valerio AA, Masner L, Johnson NF (2009) Identity and synonymy of Dicroscelio Kieffer and description of Axea, a new genus from tropical Africa and Asia (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea: Platygastridae). Zootaxa 2003: 1–45. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2003.1.1

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1 

Supplementary material for Revision of Phoenoteleia (Hymenoptera, Scelionidae, Scelioninae)

Zachary Lahey, Luciana Musetti , Lubomír Masner , Norman F. Johnson

Data type: Morphological terminology

Explanation note: List and definitions of morphological terms used in Revision of Phoenoteleia (Hymenoptera, Scelionidae, Scelioninae).

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 (26.73 kb)
Supplementary material 2 

Figures S1–S4

Zachary Lahey, Luciana Musetti , Lubomír Masner , Norman F. Johnson

Data type: Word doc file

Explanation note: Supplementary Figures S1–S4. Dicroscelio Kieffer, male (OSUC 185966; New Caledonia) S1 head, mesosoma, dorsal view S2 metasoma, fore wing venation, dorsal view (inset: dorsal metasoma of Phoenoteleia fusca (=Plagioscelio fuscus), line drawing of Kieffer (1926)) S3 mesosoma, lateral view S4 head, anterior view. Scale bars in millimeters.

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 (12.92 MB)
login to comment