Anastatus (Anastatus) dexingensis Sheng and Wang 1997

Anastatus (Anastatus) dexingensis Sheng and Wang, 1997

Figs 4, 5

Anastatus dexingensis Sheng and Wang, in Sheng et al. 1997: 59 (Chinese description), 63 (English synopsis), figs 6–9. De- scribed: female.

Anastatus kashmirensis; Hu et al., 2011: 483–484, fig. 1. Misidentification.

Anastatus dexingensis; Peng et al., 2017: 4–6, figs 1–7.

Diagnosis. FEMALE. Macropterous (Figs 4A, F, G). Fore wing with hyaline cross band behind marginal vein complete but often with at least a few dark setae medially within band (Fig. 4H) and sometimes with more-or-less complete band of dark setae medially (Fig. 4I); infuscate region basal of hyaline band with uniformly dark setae and variably broad relative to hyaline band depending on whether hyaline band with entirely white setae (Fig. 4F) or with dark setae medially (Figs 4H, I); basal region with basal cell, mediocubital fold and cubital and vanal areas uniformly setose, though basal cell with comparatively inconspicuous white setae (Fig. 5B). Head (Fig. 4C) with scrobal depression distinctly separated from anterior ocellus by distance at least equal to 2× longitudinal diameter of ocellus. Antenna (Fig. 5A) with fl2 longer than pedicel, but not all funiculars longer than wide, with at least apical two funiculars quadrate to slightly transverse (Fig. 5A, insert). Mesosoma, including procoxa (Fig. 4A), entirely dark, with concave posterior part of mesoscutum bright green to bluish or partly purple in distinct contrast to rest of mesoscutum (Fig. 4B); mesotibial apical spur infuscate (Fig. 5C); mesotarsus with at least basal three tarsomeres pale, much lighter than mesotibial apical spur and dark mesotarsal pegs (Fig. 5C). Mesoscutum (Fig. 4B) with convex anterior part of medial lobe entirely punctate-reticulate, and with posterior concave part of mesoscutum broadly setose with white setae medially, but apices of setae not extending laterally to carinate margin of lateral lobe; mesoscutal lateral lobe uniformly reticulate-imbricate to reticulate-rugose and setose anterior to posteromedian carina (Figs 4B, D). Profemur ventrally with distinct, acute, spine-like denticle (tooth) within about apical third (cf. Fig. 9A).

MALE. Antenna (Figs 5D, F) with scape yellow; pedicel dark dorsally but pale ventrally; flagellum with at least basal one or two flagellomeres paler relative to darker brown apical flagellomeres such that darker multiporous plate sensilla (Fig. 5D: mps) contrasting in colour with surrounding cuticle, and consisting of clava and seven funiculars, with all funiculars obviously longer than wide and clava subequal in length to combined length of apical two funiculars (Fig. 5D). Head (Fig. 5E) with frons mostly to entirely mesh-like coriaceous to pustulate. Mesopleurosternum uniformly dark (Fig. 5F) or at most only transepisternal line obscurely differentiated. Legs (Fig. 5F) with trochanters and trochantelli pale; pro- and mesofemora mostly dark but narrowly pale apically, and metafemur entirely dark; pro- and mesotibiae entirely pale, but metatibia almost entirely dark, only narrowly pale basally for distance at most about equal with apical width of tibia; tarsi pale. Fore wing (Fig. 5H) with costal cell dorsally setose along entire leading margin (Fig. 5I); basal cell variably densely, but more-or-less uniformly setose with dark setae; disc with large, quadrangular speculum (Fig. 5H: spc), the ventral surface with only a few setae anteriorly adjacent to parastigma apically, and closed posteriorly by line of dark setae.

Species concept. Our concept of A. dexingensis is based on examination of the female holotype and one remaining female paratype (FAFU) from Jiangxi Province, China as detailed by Peng et al. (2017).

Non-type material examined. Regional. Fujian: Fuzhou City, 22.V.1956 (1♀ IZCAS), 1.VI.1956 (2♀ IZCAS). Houzhai, Daiyun Mountains, Dehua County, 905 m, 25.VIII.2015, Malaise trap, L. Peng (1♀ FAFU). Yashu Moun- tains, Ninghua County, 5–13.I.2017, L. Peng (2♀ FAFU). Hainan: Yunyue Lake, Danzhou City, 20.VIII.2004, B. Lv (1♀ IZCAS). Taiwan: Kaohsiung City, field collected 25.V.2017 from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs and laboratory reared on Samia cynthia eggs, 10.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu (2♀, 5♂ CNC). Miaoli County, field collected 24.V.2017 and laboratory reared on Tessaratoma papiliosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (1♀, 2♂ CNC). Taichung City, 8.V.2017, field col- lected/reared from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (3♀ CNC). Taichung City, field collected 25.V.2017 from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs and laboratory reared on Samia cynthia eggs from F1 generation, 12.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu (2♀, 8♂ CNC). Wufeng District, Taichung City, 24.V.2017, J.-C. Hsu (1♀ CNC). Taipei, 12.VI.2017, Y.-H. Wu, ex. Tessaratoma papillosa eggs (4♀ CNC). Taipei, laboratory reared 24.VI.2007 on Samia cynthia eggs from F1 generation field collected from Tessaratoma papillosa eggs, Y.-H. Wu (1♀ CNC). Taipei City, VIII.2016, L.-J. Wang (9♀ CNC). Taipei City, Da′an District, 10.VII.2016, J.-C. Hsu (1♀ CNC). Taipei Botanical Garden, Zhishanyuan, Shilin, Taipei City, 38 m, 25°06′09″N 121°31′53.4″E, L.-J. Wang and J.W. CHANG, egg trap, ex. laboratory reared Samia cynthia eggs, 13.IX.2016 (2♀, 3♂ CNC). National Taiwan University, Taipei City, 8.VI.2017, J.-C. Hsu (2♀ CNC).

Extralimital. INDIA. Orissa: Jharsuguda, Badmal, 13.XII.2007, F.R. Khan, Anastatus ramakrishnai det. T.C. Narendran, 2010 (3♀ CNC)

Distribution. ORIENTAL: China (Fujian, Hainan, Jiangxi, * Taiwan), * India (Orissa).

Hosts. HEMIPTERA. Tessaratomidae: * Tessaratoma papillosa. LEPIDOPTERA. Lasiocampidae: Dendrolimus kikuchii Matsumura, 1927 (Sheng et al. 1997). Saturniidae: * Samia cynthia (Drury, 1773) (factitious host).

Remarks. Among the species we recognise from China, females treated as A. dexingensis are very similar to those of A. shichengensis, which have the mesoscutal lateral lobe dorsolongitudinally setose and sculptured (Fig. 23E: arrow) similar to A. dexingensis females (Fig. 4D), but the profemur abruptly angulate apically (Fig. 23H) rather than having a spine-like denticle apically (cf. Fig. 9A: arrow). Females of A. formosanus have an apically spine-like denticulate profemur (Fig. 9A: arrow) similar to A. dexingensis females, but have a differentiated, bare and smoother, more minutely mesh-like coriaceous, dorsolongitudinal region anterior to the posteromedian carina (Figs 8B, D). Females of A. dexingensis have the mesoscutal lateral lobe distinctly roughened, more-or-less uniformly reticulate-imbricate to reticulate-rugose, and setose anterior to the posteromedian carina (Figs 4B, D) (see also under A. shichengensis). Additionally, A. formosanus females always have a comparatively broad hyaline cross band with entirely white setae and with the apical margin of the band broadly curved similarly to the basal band (Figs 8G, H), whereas females of A. dexingensis often have at least a few dark, isolated setae medially within the cross band (Fig. 4G) and sometimes a more-or-less complete band of dark setae (Fig. 4I); and then the cross band is comparatively narrow and/or with the apical margin distinctly angulate medially relative to the basal margin (Figs 4H, I). Finally, the scrobal depression of A. formosanus females (Figs 8C, E) usually has slightly better delineated (more angulate than rounded) dorsolateral margins than does the scrobal depression of females we identify as A. dexingensis (Figs 4C, E), as noted by Peng et al. (2017). Most females we identify as A. dexingensis are also somewhat smaller, only about 2.5 mm in length, than most observed A. formosanus females, which are usually at least about 3.5 mm in length, though a couple of observed females of both species are similar in size to typical females of the other species. Even though body size overlaps among females of the two species, the size variation at least demonstrates that the mesoscutal lateral lobe sculpture and setal pattern is not size correlated.

Sheng et al. (1997) did not rear or describe males when they described A. dexingensis, but reared material from Taiwan with associated sexes suggests that males are also very similar to those of A. formosanus. Males of these two species and those of A. orientalis are differentiated in part by having one or more of the basal flagellomeres distinctly paler, more-or-less orange, than more apical flagellomeres, so that the multiporous plate sensilla contrast in colour with the surrounding cuticle (Figs 5D, 9F, 21G). Males we recognize as A. shichengensis have a similar fore wing setal pattern (Figs 24H, I) and similar flagellar structure (Figs 24E, F) as males of A. dexingensis (Figs 5D, H, I), but have an entirely dark flagellum (Fig. 24E) unlike A. dexingensis males (Fig. 5D, F). Males of A. orientalis are readily differentiated by having entirely or almost entirely pale legs (Fig. 21B), whereas males of A. dexingensis are readily differentiated from those of A. formosanus by having the costal cell setose along its entire leading margin (Fig. 5I) rather than only within its apical half or less (Fig. 9I) and the speculum closed posteriorly by a line of distinct setae (Fig. 5H: mcf) rather than being open posteriorly (Fig. 9I) or only partly, inconspicuously closed by white setae.

The three females we identify as A. dexingensis from the state of Orissa, India, which were identified as A. ramakrishnai by T.C. Narendran, brings into question the validity of the name A. dexingensis relative to A. ramakrishnai (Mani, 1935), originally described from India. The three females have a profemoral denticle plus a fore wing setal/colour pattern similar to Fig. 4I, reticulate-rugose and setose mesoscutal lateral lobes similar to Fig. 4D, and a comparatively poorly developed scrobal depression such that the dorsal limit appears to be separated from the anterior ocellus by at least twice the longitudinal diameter of the ocellus as in Fig. 4C. The original description of A. ramakrishnai and the illustration of the fore wing provided by Mani (1935, fig. 7) are insufficient to be certain as to the species identity. Hayat (1975, figs 1C, F) did, however, re-examine the broken, slide mounted holotype of A. ramakrishnai and described and illustrated the profemur as having a spine-like denticle, which supports the possible synonymy of A. dexingensis under either A. ramakrishnai or A. formosanus. The holotype was described as 2 mm in length, which might support a greater likelihood of conspecificity with A. dexingensis than with A. formosanus, but a medial region of dark setae within the fore wing hyaline band, which is often characteristic of A. dexingensis females, was neither described nor illustrated by Mani (1935, fig. 7), Narayanan et al. (1960), Hayat (1975, fig. 1B), or Narendran (2009, fig. 59). Further, Hayat (1975) newly described the male of A. ramakrishnai, and described the antenna as dark brown with the scape pale, which is more similar to A. shichengensis males (Fig. 24E) than A. dexingensis (Fig. 5D) or A. formosanus (Fig. 9F) males. The CNC specimens identified as A. ramakrishnai by Narendran are also not ones listed as examined in Narendran (2009) and it is therefore possible that Narendran misidentified the Orissa females and though they may be conspecific with our females from China they are not conspecific with A. ramakrishnai. Clarification of the species concept and nomenclatural status of A. ramakrishnai requires additional study of the holotype female and a wider revision of Anastatus from the Oriental region to more confidently determine the number of species with features similar to what we treat as A. dexingensis.