Review of the genus Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in Russia, part 1: subgenus Anaphes s. str. Author Triapitsyn, S. V. text Far Eastern Entomologist 2021 2021-06-06 432 1 48 http://dx.doi.org/10.25221/fee.432.1 journal article 10.25221/fee.432.1 2713-2196 7165990 8EBC19E9-BA98-44AF-ACEB-11C085CF06B6 Anaphes ( Anaphes ) medius Soyka, 1946 Figs 61–65 Anaphes medius Soyka, 1946: 40–41 . Anaphes ( Anaphes ) fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 (misidentification): Debauche, 1948: 159–160, plates XVI–XVII (females only), as clarified by Huber (1992: 41, 58–59). Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 (misidentification): Hellén, 1974: 26 (in part, record from “Terijoki”, USSR). Anaphes intermedius (Soyka, 1949) : Huber, 1992: 57 ( type information, descriptive notes), 74 (list), 102, 106 (illustrations). Anaphes medius Soyka : Huber, 1992: 58 (taxonomic history, synonymy, type information, descriptive notes), 75 (list), 102, 106 (illustrations); Müller & Triapitsyn, 2021: 282 (record from Germany ). Anaphes ( Anaphes ) medius Soyka : Huber & Thuróczy, 2018: 26–27 (list, type information, synonyms), 45 (key), 48 (host), 91 (illustration). MATERIAL EXAMINED . Russia : Krasnodarskii krai, Krasnodar , All-Russian Research Institute of Biological Plant Protection , 31.VIII 2003 ( V . V . Kostjukov) [ 3 ♀ , UCRC ]. Moskovskaya oblast’, Noginskiy rayon, Fryazevo: 25. VI –2.VII 2000 (M. E. Tretiakov) [ 2 ♀ , UCRC ]; 24.VI 2002 (S. V . Triapitsyn) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ]; 14.VII 2002 (M. E. Tretiakov) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ]; 1.VIII 2002 ( M. E. Tretiakov ) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ]. Saint Petersburg , Kurortnyi rayon, Zelenogorsk , 12. VI 1927 ( W. Hellén ), at railway tracks [ 1 ♀ , FMNH ] (misidentified by W. Hellén as A. fuscipennis ). Stavropol’skii krai: NW of Kislovodsk, 43°55’30’’N 42°42’53’’E , 810 m , 29. V 2003 (E. V . Khomchenko) [ 3 ♀ , UCRC , ZIN ] . Prietokskiy, ( V . V . Kostjukov): 14.VII 2003 [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ]; 12.VIII 2003 [ 3 ♀ , UCRC ] . Tambovskaya oblast’, Inzhavinskiy rayon, Talinka ( 7 km S of Pavlovka), 26–27. V 2000 (M. E. Tretiakov ) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ] . EXTRALIMITAL MATERIAL EXAMINED . Belgium : Liège, Wanze, Antheit, Corphalie ( R . Detry): 1–14.VII 1989 [ 1 ♀ , ISNB ]; 27.IV–11. V 1990 [ 1 ♀ , ISNB ]. Walloon Brabant , Waterloo ( P. Dessart ), in garden : 30.VIII–9.IX 1992 [ 3 ♀ , ISNB ]; 10–20.IX 1992 [ 3 ♀ , ISNB ]. Italy : Lazio , Roma Prov. , Bosco di Manziana , 42°07.392’N 12°07.314’E , 400 m, 9. VI 2003 , Quercus cerris forest (M. Bologna, J. Munro, A. Owen, J. D. Pinto) [ 1 ♀ , Figs 61–65. Anaphes ( Anaphes ) medius , female. 61) Antenna (Krasnodar, Krasnodarskii krai, Russia ), 62) antenna (Waterloo, Walloon Brabant, Belgium ), 63–65 (Bosco di Manziana, Roma Province, Lazio , Italy ): 63) wings, 64) ovipositor, 65) metatibia and metatarsus. DIAGNOSIS. FEMALE (specimens from the European part of Russia , Belgium and Italy ). Body length (slide-mounted specimens) 0.8–0.86 mm . Antenna ( Figs 61, 62 ) with scape (excluding radicle) 2.8–3.4× as long as wide, with faint, inconspicuous cross-ridges; F2–F6 longer than pedicel, F2 3.8–4.5× as long as wide ( 2.9 in one tentatively identified, small specimen), F3 the longest funicular, F2 without mps, F3–F6 each with 2 mps; clava with 6 mps, 2.5–3.2× as long as wide, 0.8–0.9× as long as combined length of F5 and F6. Fore wing ( Fig. 63 ) 4.9–5.4× as long as wide; longest marginal seta 0.9–1.0× maximum wing width; marginal space separated from medial space by 1 complete line of setae. Hind wing ( Fig. 63 ) 18–22× as long as wide; longest marginal seta 3.1–3.6× maximum wing width, disc with 1 irregular row of setae apically. Metatarsomere 1 either about as long as or slightly shorter than metatarsomere 2 ( Fig. 65 ). Ovipositor ( Fig. 64 ) occupying entire length of gaster, extending forward at most to base of mesocoxa, not or at most barely exserted beyond apex of gaster posteriorly, and 1.1–1.5× length of metatibia. MALE. Known (Huber & Thuróczy, 2018). DISTRIBUTION. Russia *; Austria , Belgium (Debauche 1948 [as A. ( Anaphes ) fuscipennis , females only]; Huber, 1992), Germany , Italy *, Poland , Switzerland . HOST. Miridae (Hemiptera) : Lygus rugulipennis Poppius, 1911 (Huber & Thuróczy, 2018). REMARKS. The following specimens also likely belong to A . ( Anaphes ) medius : China : Beijing , Mentougou District , Liyan Ling , Linshan Mts. , 40°00.28’N 115°30.75’E , 1749 m , 2.VIII 2002 ( G. Melika ) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ]. Russia : Moskovskaya oblast’, Noginskiy rayon , Fryazevo , 14.VII 2002 ( M.E. Tretiakov ) [ 1 ♀ , UCRC ] . Anaphes ( Anaphes ) medius can be easily confused with A . ( Anaphes ) regulus Walker, 1846 when the key in Huber & Thuróczy (2018) is used, which separates them very narrowly based on the length of the ovipositor sheaths (not of the ovipositor itself) relative to the metatibia length. Thus, any clearcut separation of these two nominal species is practically impossible by the relative length of the ovipositor (I also have seen female specimens from Finland , to be reported elsewhere, that seem to belong to A . ( Anaphes ) regulus but whose ovipositor is about 1.1× length of the metatibia), but it appears that in A . ( Anaphes ) medius the clava is relatively shorter (slightly shorter than the combined length of F5 and F6) than in A . ( Anaphes ) regulus (at least slightly longer than the combined length of F5 and F6). Indeed, in both the lectotype (fig. 85, p. 94 in Huber & Thuróczy, 2018) and the paralectotype (fig. 4, p. 56 in Thuróczy & O’Connor, 2015) females of A . regulus the clava is distinctly longer than the combined length of F5 and F6. Females of both species also separate well by the length to width ratio of the fore wing, as indicated in the key.