Alloxysta tscheki (Giraud, 1860)

Figs 3.16, 5.20

Allotria tscheki Giraud, 1860: 128 . Type: deposited in NMW (examined).

Allotria (Allotria) tscheki – Dalla Torre & Kieffer 1902: 41.

Charips (Charips) tscheki – Dalla Torre & Kieffer 1910: 285.

Charips tscheki – Dunn 1949: 106.

Alloxysta tscheki – Hellén 1963: 18.

Diagnosis

Alloxysta tscheki is morphologically very similar to A. consobrina and it is practically impossible to differentiate them under the microscope (see comments).

Material examined

Lectotype

AUSTRIA: ♂ [ All. Tscheki det. Giraud Type (handwritten)], [Ex. Aphidibus; Ribes rubr. (handwritten)], [ Allotria Tscheki Giraud (handwritten)], [ Allotria Tscheki Giraud 2♂♂, det. H.H. Evenhuis, 1976 (handwritten, orange label)], [das rechte Männchen wäre als Lektotypus zu wählen, H.H. Evenhuis (handwritten, orange label)], [NHMW (yellow label)], [LECTOTYPE Allotria tscheki Giraud, 1860 ♂ Desig. H.H. Evenhuis, 1976 (red label)], [ Alloxysta tscheki (Giraud, 1860) ♂ det. M. Ferrer-Suay 2013] (NMW).

Paralectotypes

AUSTRIA: 1 ♂ [ Tscheki, Pirstiny, 1867 (handwritten)], [ All. Tscheki det. Giraud Type (handwritten)], [ Allotria Tscheki Giraud, 2 ♂♂, det. H.H. Evenhuis, 1976 (handwritten)], [NHMW (yellow label)], [PARALECTOTYPE Allotria tscheki Giraud, 1860 ♂ (red label)], [ Alloxysta tscheki (Giraud, 1860) ♂ det. M. Ferrer-Suay 2013](NMW); 1 ♀ [ All.Tscheki det.Giraud Type (handwritten)], [understandable, Ex. Aphis Ribes Tschek col.], [ Allotria Tscheki Giraud 2 ♀♀ det. H.H. Evenhuis 1976 (handwritten, orange label)], [NHMW (yellow label)], [PARALECTOTYPE Allotria tscheki Giraud, 1860 ♂ (red label)], [ Alloxysta tscheki (Giraud, 1860) ♀ det. M. Ferrer-Suay 2013] (NMW) ; 2 ♀♀ [Type (handwritten)], [ All. Tscheki det. Giraud Type (handwritten)], [ Allotria Tscheki Giraud (handwritten)], [2♀♀, det. H.H. Evenhuis, 1976 (handwritten, orange label)], [NHMW (yellow label)], [PARALECTOTYPE Allotria tscheki Giraud, 1860 ♂ (red label)], [ Alloxysta tscheki (Giraud, 1860) ♀ det. M. Ferrer-Suay 2013] (NMW).

Distribution

Palaearctic.

Certain records: Austria (Giraud 1860: 128), Iran (Ferrer-Suay et al. 2013a: 39), Romania (Feraru et al. 2005: 67), Japan (Ferrer-Suay et al. 2013i).

Uncertain records: Austria (Giraud 1860: 128; Hellén 1963: 19), Belgium (Lameere 1907), England (Cameron 1889: 54), Finland (Hellén 1963: 19), France (De Gaulle 1908: 26; Dalla Torre & Kieffer 1910: 285), Germany (Taschenberg 1866: 129; van Veen et al. 2003: 450), Hungary (Dalla Torre & Kieffer 1910: 285), Scotland (Cameron 1886: 85), Western Europe (Andrews 1978: 91).

Comments

The morphological features of A. tscheki are very similar, if not identical, to those of A. consobrina . According to Van Veen et al. (2003), who treated A. consobrina as A. fuscicornis, these two species have to be considered as biologically different, because their typical hosts are different: A. consobrina tends to attack Brevicorine brassicae (L., 1758) through Diaretiella rapae (M’cIntosh, 1855), while A. tscheki appears in Cryptomizus sp. through Aphidius ribes Haliday, 1834 . Additionally, taking into account the sequences of the ITS2 gene, these two species have different haplotypes. However, these arguments can be disputed. Firstly, Alloxysta consobrina is a cosmopolitan species that has already been found in a diverse range of hosts, although not yet in Aphidius ribes . Secondly, the molecular results are not conclusive due to the low number of specimens analyzed. Also, Van Veen et al. (2003) only took into account specimens collected in a reduced area and studied just five specimens of A. tscheki . For these reasons, we consider that intraspecific variability has not been studied thoroughly enough and that a complete study should be done in order to clarify the status of these two species. While awaiting a more comprehensive assessment, we treat these two species as separate (Ferrer-Suay et al. 2015b: 33).