Careopalpis latita Dorchin, 2019

Dorchin, Netta, Danon, Gilad & Dor, Roi, 2019, Gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) associated with Suaeda (Chenopodiaceae) in Israel and the Mediterranean Basin, Israel Journal of Entomology (Oxford, England) 49 (2), pp. 99-134 : 119-123

Careopalpis latita Dorchin , n. sp.

( Figs 26–28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36)

LSID: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:E77EA295-FF6E-4CF2-BD87-48D5CAE0BD41 .

Etymology: The species name is from the Latin latita for hidden or lurking, with reference to the lack of any external signs of the gall midge presence in the leaves.

Description:

Gall and biology. This species develops without apparent external signs in leaves or young stems of Suaeda aegyptiaca and S. fruticosa . Its presence in the plant becomes apparent only after adult emergence, when empty pupal exuviae are found stuck in it ( Figs 26, 27). The species appears to be equally abundant on its two host plants, which share the same habitats along the rift valley. Apparently it alternates between them according to season, having been reared from S. aegyptiaca from April to October and from S. fruticosa from November to February.

Adult. General color of female pinkish, of male brownish orange, mostly covered by white scales ( Fig. 28); dorsal part of abdomen with three longitudinal lines of black scales formed by three triangular patches on each tergite.

Head: Eye facets circular, gap between eyes on vertex 0–0.5 facets wide.Antenna: Scape trapezoid, pedicel spherical, flagellomeres barrel-shaped, about 1.3–2.0 times as long as wide, each with two whorls of appressed circumfila around mid-length with longitudinal connections, proximal whorl of thin setae, distal whorl of thicker, longer setae on large sockets, and otherwise setulose; apical flagellomere rounder or slightly tapered.Adjacent flagellomeres occasionally fused to form one larger unit. Frontoclypeal membrane with about 10 setae and numerous scales. Palpus ( Fig. 30) vestigial, barely visible, with two very long setae. Labella absent.

Thorax: Wing transparent, with sparse hair-like setae on entire surface and long delicate hair-like setae along posterior edge; wing length 1.34–1.96 mm in female (n=38), 1.20–1.72 mm in male (n=17); R 4+5 reaching C proximal to mid-length of wing; C broken beyond junction with R 4+5, both densely covered by black and white scales to junction point; M 4 absent, M 1+2 straight, CuA curved at mid-length. Legs ( Fig. 31): Tarsal claws toothed on all legs, evenly curved, tooth curved basally, empodia longer than bend in claw, pulvilli about as long as bend.

Female abdomen ( Fig. 32): Tergites 1–7 without anterior trichoid seate, with posterior row of strong setae and evenly distributed scales; pigmented section of tergite 8 very small, without vestiture. Sternites 2–7 without anterior trichoid setae, with posterior row and median group or setae, more numerous on sternites 6–7; sternite 7 often weakly sclerotized; sternite 8 undifferentiated from surrounding membrane. Ovipositor ( Fig. 33): Segment 8 laterally with relatively small group of about 20 long, curved, occasionally almost S-shaped setae on prominent sockets. Segment 9 with sclerotized patches basally and wide rod-like sclerite joining setose laterobasal plate of cercal segment. Cercal segment with strongly sclerotized lateral plate sheathing entire base of segment, with small dorsal saddle-shaped projection and 30–35 straight setae on prominent sockets.Aculeus conspicuously thick, slightly curved ventrally, about same width throughout length, with row of ventrally pointed, long, fine setae to apex. Apical lamella ovoid, widest at base, about as long as aculeus.

Male abdomen: General color brownish orange; scale pattern as in female. Tergites 1–7 rectangular, without anterior trichoid setae, with posterior row of setae and evenly distributed scales; tergite 8 almost entirely undifferentiated from surrounding membrane, without vestiture. Sternites 2–6 without anterior trichoid

36 37

setae, with irregular posterior row of setae and several setae medially; sternite 8 similar but pigmented area much smaller. Terminalia ( Fig. 35): Gonocoxite short and wide, same width throughout length, with several strong setae denser around articulation with gonostylus; mediobasal lobes widest around mid-length, divided apically into two lobes, one of which with short, distinct seta, otherwise covered by strong, curved setae almost to apex, clearly shorter than edeagus. Gonostylus short and compact, almost same width throughout length, evenly setulose dorsally and ventrally, with several strong setae more numerous around small apical tooth. Cerci separated by triangular depression to mid-length, wider than mediobasal lobes, evenly setose and setulose. Hypoproct very short and wide, rounded apically. Aedeagus rounded apically.

Larva. Unknown.

Pupa ( Figs 36, 37). Light orange.Antennal bases well developed into short, curved and tapered horns. Cephalic seta short and fine, on conspicuous socket. Frons with short, straight and tapered horn, without associated papillae. Prothoracic spiracle 2–3 times as long as wide, trachea opens close to apex. Dorsal part of abdominal tergites with transverse field of tiny spicules medially.

Holotype: ♀, Israel: Enot Qane Nature Reserve , Rt. 90 [31°37'19.8"N 35°24'34.3"E], 1.vi.2014, A. Freidberg, reared from Suaeda aegyptica leaf. Mounted on permanent microscope slide in Euparal (SMNHTAU).

Paratypes: Israel: From Suaeda aegyptiaca : 1♀, same data as holotype ; 2♀, Yafit , Rt. 90, 17.iv.1996, N. Dorchin ; 1♀, Pazael , Rt. 90, 17.iv.1996, N. Dorchin ; 1♀, Lido junction, 1 km S, Rt. 90, 7.iv.2013, G. Danon ; 1♀, Lido junction, 1 km S, Rt. 90, 27.iv.2014, N. Dorchin ; 2♀ 1♂, Lido junction, 5.x.2014, N. Dorchin ; 4♀ 4♂, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , Rt. 90, 5.x.2014, N. Dorchin .

From Suaeda fruticosa : 1♀, Lido junction. 1 km W, Rt. 1, 31.i.1995, N. Dorchin ; 3♀ 1♂, Lido junction 1 km W, Rt. 1, 7.xi.1996, N. Dorchin ; 1♀, Lido junction, 1 km W, Rt. 1, 2.i.2013, G. Danon ; 1♂, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , 13.ii.2013, G. Danon ; 7♀ 2♂, Nahal Zruya , Rt. 90, 16.ii.2014, G. Danon ; 1♂, Nahal Mor , Rt. 90, 16.ii.2014, G. Danon ; 1♂, Enot Zuqim Nature Rreserve , 23.xii.2014, N. Dorchin ; 4♀ 1♂, Nahal Hatrurim , Rt. 90, 1.iii.2016, N. Keidar; 2 exuviae , 1♀, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , 29.xii.2016, N. Bonda ; 1♀, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , 12.i.2016, N. Keidar; 2 exuviae , 2♀ 1♂, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , 3.i.2017, N. Bonda; 4 exuviae , 1♀ 2♂, Enot Zuquim Nature Reserve , 17.i.2017, N. Keidar & N. Bonda; 4 exuviae, Nahal Hatrurim, Rt. 90, 1.ii.2017, N. Keidar; 3 exuviae , 1♀, Enot Zuqim Nature Reserve , 1.ii.2017, N. Keidar & N. Bonda; 1 exuviae, Lido junction 1 km W, Rt. 1, 14.ii.2017, N. Keidar .

Distribution: Currently known only from the central rift valley in Israel. Most probably occurs in Jordan on the same host plants.

Remarks: Females of C. latita differ from those of C. lanceocercis in the ovoid rather than fusiform apical lamella of the ovipositor ( Fig. 33 vs. Fig. 34), and so can be separated from them when reared from their common host plant, S. fruticosa . Careopalpis latita does not differ morphologically from C. akko Dorchin & Freidberg and C. yotvata that occur in Israel on other Suaeda species, and is also similar to the four Central Asian species from Suaeda ( C. kenderlensis Fedotova , C. suaedae Fedotova , C. suaedicola Fedotova and C. suaediphila Fedotova ( Fedotova 1983, 1985, 1992, 1998). The type material of C. kenderlensis was unavailable for comparison, and that of the remaining species had not been cleared properly before having been mounted on slides or contain only males, which are not diagnostic. Even if proper material had been available to us for examination, we doubt that we would have found morphological differences among the species given the general morphological uniformity of this genus. Our molecular results ( Fig. 48; details below) suggest that morphologically indistinguishable populations of Careopalpis from different host plants even in the same small country constitute distinct species, hence we assume with a high level of confidence that the Central Asian species are not conspecific with the Israeli ones.

Furthermore, three of the Central Asian species are found on host-plant species from very different sections within Suaeda , and all but C. suaediphila cause conspicuous leaf galls, whereas all Israeli species develop in leaves or young stems without apparent gall formation. As for C. suaediphila , its original description states that it develops without gall formation in leaves of three Suaeda species in Kazakhstan (Fedotova 1992), each belongs in a different section within Suaeda . Not only do we argue that this species must differ from the Careopalpis species in Israel, but we also suspect that if C. suaediphila populations from those three host plants are subjected to molecular study they may prove to represent separate species.