The case of Holopyga gogorzae Trautmann, 1926 and revision of the H. miranda group (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae) Author Rosa, Paolo Author Pavesi, Maurizio text Natural History Sciences 2020 2020-11-18 7 2 39 56 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/nhs.2020.474 journal article 10.4081/nhs.2020.474 2385-0922 12753933 Holopyga gogorzae Trautmann, 1926 ( Figs. 1 A-F, 2C-D, 14E, 15C) Fig. 1 - Holopyga gloriosa var. gogorzae Trautmann, 1926 ; ♂ lectotype / lectotypus. A) habitus, lateral view / habitus, visione laterale; B) head, frontal view / capo, visone frontale; C) head, dorsal view/ capo, visione dorsale; D) scutellum, metanotum and propodeum, dorsal view / scutello, metanoto e propodeo, visione dorsale; E) metasoma, dorso-lateral view / metasoma, visione dorso-laterale; F) metasoma, ventral view / metasoma, visione ventrale. Fig. 2 - ♂ genital capsules / capsule genitali. Holopyga calida Linsenmaier, 1959 . A) dorsal view / visione dorsale; B) ventral view / visione ventrale. Holopyga gogorzae Trautmann, 1926 . C) dorsal view / visione dorsale; D) ventral view / visione ventrale. Holopyga gloriosa var. gogorzae Trautmann, 1926: 5 . Lectotype ♂ ; Spain : Castilia ( MfN ). Holopyga gogorzae sensu Linsenmaier, 1959: 26 ( H. miranda group), nec Trautmann, 1926 . Holopyga gogorzea : Tussac, 1994: 261 . Incorrect subsequent spelling. Material examined. Spain . ♂ lectotype (see below), Spanien , coll. Trautmann, gloriosa Fabr. var. nov. gogorzae Type [red label handwritten by Trautmann] ( MfN ). Murcia : 5♂♂ , Lorca, 4.- 6.v.1999 , leg. F. Fresno ( MNCN ; PRC ; MPC ). Madrid : 1♂ , Valdaracete, 28.v.2009 , leg. F. Fresno ( MNCN ). Alicante : 2♂♂ , Torremendo, 16.iv.1983 ( MNCN ; PRC ). The following specimens are labelled as paratypes of H. rubra Linsenmaier, 1999 : Sevilla : 1♂ , W of Sevilla, 14.v.1964 , leg. W. Linsenmaier ( NMLU ); 4♂♂ , same locality, 24.iv.1965 ( NMLU ); 1♂ , Jerez, 16.v.1964 , leg. W. Linsenmaier ( NMLU ). Portugal . Lisboa : 1♂ , Caparica, 22.v.1955 , leg. N.F. de Andrade ( NMLU ). Remarks. Holopyga gogorzae was described by Trautmann (1926) as follows: “ Holopyga gloriosa Fabr. var. nov. gogorzae ist wie Nominatsform gefärbt, besitzt aber golden Mesopleurae, vielleicht Uebergang zu miranda Ab. [= Holopyga gloriosa Fabr. var. nov. gogorzae is coloured like the nominate form, but has golden mesopleura, maybe transition to miranda Ab. ]. Castilien, coll. Trautmann.”. The alleged “ H. gloriosa nominate form” is to be intended as a H. lucida -like species. This colour description is short, yet detailed enough to exclude H. gogorzae from the H. miranda group, since none of the species like the “ H. gloriosa nominate form” of the authors ever has wholly golden-red head as H. miranda . Trautmann (1927) provided a more detailed description: “Pronotum, auch die Seiten desselben, Mesonotum, Scutellum, Metanotum, Mesopleurae und Schenkel kupfern. Die Abdomentergite sind kupfern, der Kopf grün, die ganze Unterseite schwarz [= Pronotum, also the sides of the same, mesonotum, scutellum, metanotum, mesopleura and femora coppery. The abdominal segments are coppery, the head green, the whole underside black]. Castilien. Type in Coll. Trautmann (about the actual status of the “ type ”, see below). Linsenmaier (1959) was the first author after Trautmann (1926, 1927) to deal with H. gogorzae . His interpretation however was incorrect, since he considered as H. gogorzae an entirely metallic golden-red species, in contrast with the original description, and included H. gogorzae in the newly established H. miranda group. Without type examination, Linsenmaier (1959) was likely misled by the statements: “maybe a transition to H. miranda ” and “femora coppery [...] the whole underside black”. He based his description only upon female specimens; obviously more than one, since he gives as distribution “ Spanien , Portugal ” and no bibliographic references to H. gogorzae exist, subsequent to Trautmann (1926 , 1927 ), in which only “Castilien” is reported. Linsenmaier (1959) explicitly states he does not know the male: “ ♂ mir nicht bekannt, die Type ( ♂ ) nach Trautmann mit mehr grünem K[opf]” [= ♂ unknown to me, the type ( ♂ ) according to Trautmann with more green head]. Trautmann (1926 , 1927 ), however, never stated the type was a male; this was most likely inferred by Linsenmaier from having the type green head, in contrast with his females with red-golden head. A recent re-examination of Linsenmaier’s collection (Rosa, unpubl.) showed that Linsenmaier later received and collected several males and females of his “ H. gogorzae ”, from Spain and Portugal , which however did not lead him to change his opinion, despite of being males quite similar in colouring to females, thus not matching Trautmann’s (1926) description. All subsequent European authors ( Mingo 1970 , 1994 ; Tussac 1994 ; Rosa & Soon 2012 ) just accepted Linsenmaier’s (1959) interpretation. As the Trautmann’s “type” is concerned, neither the original description of H. gloriosa var. gogorzae (1926), nor the subsequent large work, Die Goldwespen Europas (1927), do contain any statement that the description was based upon a single specimen, so that there is no evidence of monotypy. The “type” housed at MfN in Trautmann’s collection is not a holotype , since it was not cited as such in the original description; the Article 72.4.7. of the Code clearly states that “The mere citation of “Type” or equivalent expression, in a published work other than that in which the nominal species-group taxon is established [...] is not necessarily evidence that a specimen is or is fixed as any of the kinds of types referred to in this Chapter”. Thus, this specimen is to be regarded as a syntype . Because of the possible existence of unnoticed type series specimens, and of the taxonomic problems in which the species was involved, we herewith fix the Trautmann’s specimen of Holopyga gloriosa var. gogorzae as the lectotype . At first sight, the lectotype ( Fig. 1 ) may appear related to H. gloriosa auctorum (rejected and invalid name, see below), because of body colouration. However, it can be easily separated from all Holopyga related to H. “gloriosa ” (e.g. H. inflammata , H. lucida , H. jurinei ) by bifid tarsal claws ( Fig. 14E ), with one small, stout subsidiary tooth, and a second, highly reduced denticle, the latter bearing a long, medial seta; red colour of mesopleura ( Fig. 1A ); shortened first flagellomere ( Fig. 1B ); and rounded temples in dorsal view ( Fig. 1C ). The bifid tarsal claws being a feature shared with both H. fervida and H. miranda groups, H. gogorzae actually appears somewhat intermediate between them, as pointed up by Trautmann (1926) . On the other hand, besides the shared tarsal claws feature, females of the fervida group show clear similarities in habitus with those of the H. miranda group, mainly differing in mesoscutellum punctation. Differences in colouring of mesosoma underside are not wholly consistent, since two Eastern species included in miranda group, namely the East Mediterranean H. enslini Linsenmaier, 1959 , and the Central Asian H. lucens Rosa, 2018 , have ventrally metallic mesosoma. In the next future, such similarities likely will lead to merge H. fervida and H. miranda groups into a single one, to be named H. fervida group for priority reasons, possibly including H. fervida sensu stricto and H. miranda subgroups. We prefer to wait until new molecular data, based on recently collected specimens of the H. miranda group, will be published (Rosa et al ., in prep.). Linsenmaier (1999) also described two new species in the Holopyga fervida group: H. meknesia , from Morocco , and H. rubra from Morocco (type locality) and Iberian Peninsula. Holopyga rubra holotype ( Fig. 15E ) and paratypes ( Fig. 15D ) from Morocco actually belong to a separate species, closely related to H. gogorzae Trautmann. Iberian paratypes of H. rubra , from Spain (Sevilla and Jerez) and Portugal (Caparica), all males, upon examination, conversely proved H. gogorzae . Moroccan males of H. rubra ( Fig. 15D ) show a different body colouration, entirely green as typical males of H. fervida , and the typical punctation of H. fervida males, with scutellum anteromedian polished; genitalia, however ( Linsenmaier, 1999 ), are structurally very similar to H. gogorzae . The female of H. rubra ( Fig. 15E ) is easily recognisable from H. fervida by extended red body colouration, including mesopleuron and metanotum, and different shape of the head. At our knowledge, only males of H. gogorzae , in fair numbers, are known. The female may be rare to very rare; moreover, it has possibly already been collected, yet overlooked, because of strong similarities with some other species, most likely H. fervida . This species appears to be endemic to Iberian Peninsula so far.