Aphelinoidea (Aphelinoidea) waterhousei ( Blood & Kryger, 1928 ), 2018

Triapitsyn, Ś. Serguei V., 2018, Review of the Palearctic Aphelinoidea (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), with focus on the species described by Ś. Nowicki, Israel Journal of Entomology 48 (2), pp. 33-81 : 76

Aphelinoidea (Aphelinoidea) waterhousei ( Blood & Kryger, 1928) , rev. stat.

( Figs 88–92)

Diaclava waterhousei Blood & Kryger, 1928: 214 . Type locality: Burnham Beeches (“near the

stream”), Buckinghamshire County, England, UK.

Aphelinoidea (Diaclava) waterhousei (Blood & Kryger) : Doutt & Viggiani 1968: 528 (illustrations of

♂,­apparently­of­the­holotype),­531­(list);­Trjapitzin­1995:­302­(short­diagnosis).

Aphelinoidea waterhousei (Blood & Kryger) : Fursov 2007: 966 (key, distribution [as A. waterhousei

Blood & Kryger]).

Diagnosis: Female. Unknown.

Male. Apical segment of clava contrastingly darker than the basal segment, the latter apparently at least partially subdivided ( Fig. 89); clava about 3× as long as wide. Fore wing ( Figs 90, 92) 3.6× as long as wide, longest marginal seta about 0.5× greatest width of wing; marginal vein notably thickened and stigmal vein short, inconspicuous; disc setose beyond venation and slightly infuscate behind venation, more conspicuously so just behind stigmal vein.

Type material examined: Holotype­ ♂ ­[ BMNH]­on­slide­(Fig.­91)­labeled:­(1)­“Burnham­Bee­ches­ 14.7.13 C. Waterhouse ”, (2) “ J. P. Kryger prep. Diaclava waterhousei B.M. TYPE 5.2224”, (3) [red circle] “Holo-type”, (4) [barcode database label] “010158671 NHMUK”. The holotype, which was examined during one of my visits to the BMNH, is uncleared, with head detached from the body ( Fig. 88) .

Distribution: UK ( England).

Hosts: Unknown.

Comments: The genus Diaclava Blood & Kryger was synonymized under Aphelinoidea and treated as its subgenus by Doutt and Viggiani (1968), who separated it in their key from the other subgenera based on the dark apical segment of the clava, an unusually narrow fore wing (both in my opinion are not good as subge­neric­ defining­ characters),­and­ also­ on­ an­ incorrect­ assessment­ of­ the­ stigmalvein. Examination of the digital images of the holotype of Diaclava waterhousei leaves no doubt that it is a representative of the semifuscipennis species group of the nominate subgenus A. ( Aphelinoidea ), as in A. semifuscipennis the stigmal vein is also very short and often inconspicuous, and the marginal vein is similarly thickened ( Figs 63, 67). Indeed, one can see a short, inconspicuous stigmal vein somewhat similar to that of A. semifuscipennis in the holotype of D. waterhousei ( Figs 90, 92). Also, even though its male holotype is uncleared ( Fig. 88), under mag­ni­fication­ it­ is­ possible­ to­ see­ that­ the­ basal­ segment­ of­ the­ clava­ is­ at­ leastpartially subdivided ( Fig. 89). Thus, the subgenus Aphelinoidea (Diaclava) (Blood & Kryger) , n. syn. is synonymized under the nominate subgenus, A. ( Aphelinoidea ) Girault, and its type species Diaclava waterhousei Blood & Kryger is transferred to the latter as A. (Aphelinoidea) waterhousei (Blood & Kryger), rev. stat.

A matching female of A. waterhousei from or near its type locality is needed to further clarify its identity and status. Unfortunately, the male genitalia of its holotype cannot be seen within the uncleared, laterally mounted gaster ( Figs 88, 90). Aphelinoidea waterhousei could likely represent a valid species somewhat similar to A. semifuscipennis , but distinct from the latter in having a peculiarly colored clava, with its apical segment being contrastingly much darker than the whitish basal segment. Indeed, one unusual specimen ( USA: Nebraska, Buffalo County, 6.8­mi.­E­of­Odessa,­ 29.viii.1983,­J.D.­Pinto­[1♂,­UCRC],­Fig.­95)­from­the­ semifuscipennis species group of the nominate subgenus of Aphelinoidea seems to be very similar to A. waterhousei , but probably still not belonging to that species due to differing proportions of the claval segments and a relatively wider fore wing with­relatively­shorter­marginal­setae­(Fig.­96).­It­was­identified­by­J.D.­Pinto as “ Aphelinoidea (Diaclava) n. sp.”. It has a similar, very dark apical segment of the clava,­with­its­basal­segment­being­contrastingly­whitish­(Fig.­93).­It­is­definitelynot A. semifuscipennis because its genitalia ( Fig. 94), which also lack aedeagal apodemes, are notably more elongate (cf. Fig. 66), 167 µm long. Its body is 787 µm long; the antenna ( Figs 93, 95) with scape 3.0× as long as wide, clava about 3.3× as long as wide and about 1.8× length of pedicel, apical claval segment about 1.1× length of basal segment; the fore wing ( Fig. 96) is 2.95× as long as wide and the longest marginal seta is 0.34× greatest width of the wing, with stigmal vein short and inconspicuous ( Fig. 97), similar to that in A. waterhousei ( Fig. 92).