Systematic revision of the parasitoid wasp genus Glyptapanteles Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Braconidae: Microgastrinae) for Australia results in a ten-fold increase in species Author Fagan-Jeffries, Erinn P. C724E269-029E-49E8-8D95-6F5A5DA6BAAF Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology & Biodiversity and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia. & South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia. erinn.fagan-jeffries@adelaide.edu.au Author McCLELLAND, Alana R. 3FDC78D1-CDF3-472F-B4EE-63A43C1730AF Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology & Biodiversity and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia. alana.mcclelland@adelaide.edu.au Author Bird, Andrew J. DC97FEB2-1BB0-48CE-9178-0C5F98131CC0 Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology & Biodiversity and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia. andrewbird@ozemail.com.au Author Giannotta, Madalene M. FF66BA72-4585-402F-AA42-61C9B7856048 Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, Black Mountain, ACT, Australia and Centre for Biodiversity Analysis, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia. madalene.giannotta@gmail.com Author Bradford, Tessa M. D018F430-ED59-47BA-BF6A-EF8C6675AC20 Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology & Biodiversity and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia. & South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia. tessa.bradford@samuseum.sa.gov.au Author Austin, Andrew D. DE71F924-750D-490D-84A7-F5960066F7CC Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology & Biodiversity and School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Australia. & South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia. andrew.austin@adelaide.edu.au text European Journal of Taxonomy 2022 2022-02-08 792 1 1 116 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2022.792.1647 journal article 20694 10.5852/ejt.2022.792.1647 0d881922-a259-4986-99d8-8fc3919204b0 2118-9773 6037052 18DB5F54-5CEB-498E-A6F1-E570E6A57833 Genus Glyptapanteles Ashmead, 1904 Glyptapanteles Ashmead, 1904: 147 . Glyptapanteles – Mason 1981: 105 . — Austin & Dangerfield 1992: 32 . — Arias-Penna et al . 2019 a: 561. For complete list of earlier synonyms and bibliography, see Shenefelt (1972) and Fernández- Triana et al. (2020). Type species By monotypy, Apanteles ashmeadi Wilkinson, 1928: 84 , a replacement name for Glyptapanteles manilae Ashmead, 1904 . Diagnosis The diagnosis by Fernández-Triana et al. (2020) works well for the Australian fauna and is as follows: “…fore wing without an areolet; propodeum that is either completely smooth (often) to more or less rugose (more rarely), with a median longitudinal carina that is entirely absent (often), partially defined posteriorly (often) to complete and strong (rarely), or no median carina but instead a series of very short carinae radiating from the nucha (rarely); T1 narrows towards the posterior margin, usually strongly (almost always), or more parallel-sided, or rounded at apex, as in some species of Protapanteles (rarely); T2 is almost always subtriangular or trapezoidal (rarely shaped differently); ovipositor and ovipositor sheaths are relatively short (usually) to moderately long (rarely); setae at apex of ovipositor sheaths relatively long (as long or longer than setae on hypopygium)” ( Fernández-Triana et al. 2020: 36 ). Key to the described species groups and to the morphologically distinct species of Glyptapanteles from Australia This key is based on adult females. Due to there likely being many other undescribed species of Glyptapanteles in Australia , it should be treated with caution as undescribed species could possibly key to described species within this key. We feel that a morphological key is not particularly useful for this group, other than for separating the species groups which are quite distinct (e.g., the G. albigena species group, that has the gena with a pale spot), but we present one here for completeness. Ideally, morphological identifications should be supported with COI and wingless DNA barcodes. Species that come out together at a couplet are not reliably distinguished using morphology (e.g., couplet 7). Fig. 4. Distribution of species groups of Glyptapanteles Ashmead, 1904 in Australia. A . G. albigena species group. B . G. arcanus species group. C . G. austini species group. D . G. eburneus species group. E . G. mouldsi species group. F . G. niveus species group. G . Unplaced species of Glyptapanteles in Australia. 1. Gena with a pale spot ( G. albigena species group) ( Fig. 5 A-D) ...................................................... 2 – Gena without a pale spot ( Fig. 5E ) ................................................................................................... 8 2. Gena with a large pale spot ( Fig. 5A–B ) .......................................................................................... 3 – Gena with a small pale spot (e.g., Fig. 5C–D ) .................................................................................. 4 3. Gena with a pale spot measuring at least one third of face height ( Fig. 5A ) ...................................... ........................................................ Glyptapanteles albigena Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Gena with a pale spot less than one third of face height ( Fig. 5B ) ..................................................... .................................................. Glyptapanteles sanniopolus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. 4. T2 pale (e.g., Fig. 6A–E ) ..................................................................... G. mnesampela Austin, 2000 – T2 dark (e.g., Fig. 6F ) ....................................................................................................................... 5 5. Propodeum with median carina faintly indicated posteriorly and anteriorly ( Fig. 7A ); and gena with a barely visible pale spot ( Fig. 5D ) ....... Glyptapanteles harveyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Propodeum with median carina completely absent (e.g., Fig. 7B ); gena with a clearly visible pale spot (e.g., Fig. 5C ) ............................................................................................................................ 6 6. Hind femur mostly dark (sometimes with lighter area proximally) ( Fig. 8A ) ................................... ………. .............................. Glyptapanteles andamookaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Hind femur mostly light brown or pale (e.g., Fig. 8B ) ..................................................................... 7 7. Mesosoma with strong red tinge ( Fig. 9A ) ......................................................................................... ................................................... Glyptapanteles ferrugineus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Mesosoma dark, no strong red tinge (e.g., Fig. 9B ) ........................................................................... ......................................................... Glyptapanteles kittelae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , Glyptapanteles austrinus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles aspersus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them Fig. 5. A . Glyptapanteles albigena Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (ANIC 32 130334), arrow indicating a large pale gena spot. B . G. sanniopolus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (ANIC 32 130370), arrow indicating a large pale gena spot. C . G. kittelae Fagan- Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (SAMA 32-46156) arrow indicating small (clearly visible) pale gena spot. D . G. harveyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (WAM E109889), arrow indicating small (faint, barely visible) pale gena spot. E . G. baylessi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. paratype, ♀ (AM K.517936), gena without a pale spot. Fig. 6. A . Glyptapanteles mnesampela Austin, 2000 , holotype, ♀ (ANIC 32-141445), T1 and T2 pale. B . G. eburneus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (AM K.517935), T1 and T2 pale. C . G. rixi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (QM T250981), T2 pale, T1 darker than T2. D . G. mouldsi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀, (QM T250978), T1 dark, T2 pale. E . G. dowtoni Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250953), T1 dark, T2 pale. F . G. harveyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (WAM E109889), T1 dark, T2 dark. Fig. 7. A . Glyptapanteles harveyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (WAM E109889), arrow indicating faint median carina at the posterior end of the propodeum. B . G. kittelae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (SAMA 32-46156), propodeum with median carina completely absent. Fig. 8. A . Glyptapanteles andamookaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (SAMA 32-035451), hind femur mostly dark. B . G. kittelae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (SAMA 32-46156), hind femur mostly light brown. Fig. 9. A . Glyptapanteles ferrugineus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (ANIC 32 130189), mesosoma with strong red tinge. B . G. kittelae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (SAMA 32-46156), mesosoma dark, no strong red tinge. Fig. 10. A . Glyptapanteles eburneus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird &Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (AM K.517935), propodeum with median carina clear and complete (indicated by arrow). B . G. rixi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250982), propodeum with median carina absent. Fig. 11.A–B . Glyptapanteles mouldsi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird &Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250978). A . Dorsal metasoma. B . Lateral metasoma. C–D . G. dowtoni Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250953). C . Dorsal metasoma. D . Lateral metasoma. E–F . G. rixi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (QM T250981). E . Dorsal metasoma. F . Lateral metasoma. 8. T2 pale (e.g., Fig. 6A–E ) .................................................................................................................. 9 – T2 dark (e.g., Fig. 6F ) ......................................................................................................................11 9. T1 same colour as T2, extremely pale ( Fig. 6B ); propodeum with median carina clear and complete; hind coxa pale ( G. eburneus species group, part) ............................................................................... ....................................................... Glyptapanteles eburneus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – T1 darker than T2, either dark or orange-brown (e.g., Fig. 6C–D ); propodeum with median carina absent; hind coxa dark ( G. mouldsi species group) ........................................................................ 10 10. T1 dark, S3–5 mostly pale or yellow other than hypopygium (which is dark); T3–5 mostly pale or yellow ( Fig. 11A–D ) ................ Glyptapanteles mouldsi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles dowtoni Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them – T1 orange to light brown, S5–7 dark (including hypopygium); T4–6 completely dark ( Fig. 11E–F ) ................................................................ Glyptapanteles rixi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. 11. T1 pale; hind coxa pale ( G. eburneus species group, part) ................................................................ ................................................... Glyptapanteles foraminous Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – T1 dark; hind coxa dark .................................................................................................................. 12 12. Anteromesoscutum with very sparse deep punctures, always with some smooth areas greater than diameter of punctures; T1 never wedge-shaped, propodeum coarsely rugose; sometimes with slight orange markings on postero-lateral anteromesoscutum ( G. niveus species group) (e.g., Fig. 12A– B ) .................................................................................................................................................. 13 – Anteromesoscutum normally with punctures denser than in Fig. 12A–B , smooth areas generally smaller than diameter of punctures; T1 variable, including sometimes wedge-shaped, propodeum variable, coarsely rugose to smooth; sometimes with strong orange markings on postero-lateral anteromesoscutum (e.g., Fig. 12C–D ) ............................................................................................ 14 13. Hind coxa with strong punctures covering most of area; antennal flagellomeres all dark ................. .................................................... Glyptapanteles bradfordae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Hind coxa with only sparse punctures, particularly smooth anteriorly; antennal flagellomeres sometimes with white distal segments ................................................................................................ ................................................... Glyptapanteles cooperi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles niveus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them 14. Postero-lateral anteromesoscutum with strong orange markings ( Fig. 12C ) [whole body strongly punctured, propodeum strongly rugose] ............................................................................................. ......................................................... Glyptapanteles baylessi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Postero-lateral anteromesoscutum without strong orange markings (e.g., Fig. 12D ) [sculpturing of propodeum variable, sometimes strongly rugose] .......................................................................... 15 15. Ventral side of antennal scape (at least in distal half) darker than or the same colour as flagellomeres (e.g., Fig. 13A ) ................................................................................................................................ 16 – Ventral side of antennal scape (at least in distal half) paler than flagellomeres ( G. arcanus species group) (e.g., Fig. 13B ) .................................................................................................................... 20 16. Fore wing veins r and 2RS narrow and long, each significantly longer than vein 2m and smoothly curved (not meeting at sharp angle) ( Fig. 14A ) .................................................................................. ................................................ Glyptapanteles kurandaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Fore wing veins r and 2RS each only slightly longer than vein 2m ( Fig. 14B ), sometimes meeting at sharp angle ...................................................................................................................................... 17 17. Tegula dark ........................................................................... G. deliasa Austin & Dangerfield, 1992 – Tegula pale....................................................................................................................................... 18 18. Maximum height of mesoscutellum lunules less than 0.64× maximum height of lateral face of mesoscutellum ( Fig. 15A ) [hind femur darkening posteriorly, propodeum smooth] ......................... .............................................................. Glyptapanteles drioplanetus Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2021 – Maximum height of mesoscutellum lunules approximately 0.75× maximum height of lateral face of mesoscutellum (e.g., Fig. 15B ) [hind femur completely dark or mostly pale yellow with dark patch posteriorly, propodeum smooth or with some shallow indistinct sculpturing in centre] ( G. austini species group) ................................................................................................................................. 19 Fig. 12.A . Glyptapanteles bradfordae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250944), anteromesoscutum with very sparse deep punctures and slight orange markings. B . G. cooperi Fagan- Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (QM T250947), anteromesoscutum with very sparse deep punctures and no orange markings. C . G. baylessi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (AM K.517936), anteromesoscutum with dense punctures, strong orange markings on the postero-lateral corners. D . G. kurandaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250971), with dense shallow punctures, but no strong orange markings on the anteromesoscutum. Fig. 13. A . Glyptapanteles deliasa Austin & Dangerfield, 1992 , paratype, ♀ (WINC), ventral half of antennal scape darker than flagellomeres. B . G. ruhri Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype, ♀ (QM T250986), ventral half of antennal scape paler than flagellomeres. 19. Hind femur mostly pale with dark area posteriorly [propodeum smooth and shiny] ......................... .......................................................... Glyptapanteles guzikae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – Hind femur completely dark [propodeum smooth or with some sculpturing in centre] .................... .................................................... Glyptapanteles kingae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles austini Fagan-Jeffries & Bird sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them 20. Propodeum with coarse rugose sculpturing over most of area ....................................................... 21 – Propodeum smooth, or with rugose sculpturing only in posterior half of centre, anterior half punctured or smooth ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Fig. 14. A . Glyptapanteles kurandaensis Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (QM T250969), fore wing, arrow indicating vein r. B . G. kingae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , holotype (SAMA 32-46154), arrow indicating vein r. Fig. 15. A . Glyptapanteles drioplanetus Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2021 (SAMA 32-45154). B . G. austini Fagan-Jeffries & Bird sp. nov. , paratype, ♀ (SAMA 32-46151). Solid red line indicating lateral face of the mesoscutellum, yellow dashed line indicating mesoscutellum lunules. 21. T1 smooth ........................... Glyptapanteles goodwinnoakes Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. – T1 with strong or shallow rugose sculpturing .................................................................................... .................................................... Glyptapanteles lambkinae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , Glyptapanteles arcanus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , Glyptapanteles vergrandiacus Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles erucadesolator Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them 22. T1 with strong punctures in posterior half, punctures covering at least one third of posterior half of tergite ................................. Glyptapanteles rodriguezae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles ruhri Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them – T1 smooth and shiny, if punctures present then only very few and very sparse or confined to lateral edges, covering much less than one third of area of posterior half of tergite ..................................... ....................................................... Glyptapanteles wrightae Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. , Glyptapanteles doreyi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. and Glyptapanteles lessardi Fagan-Jeffries, Bird & Austin sp. nov. These species cannot be reliably identified using morphology alone; see under the relevant species for molecular information which can be used to differentiate them Species groups assignments and diagnoses Six species groups are designated based on a combination of molecular and morphological data.Diagnoses for these groups are given below and all of the treated species are then presented in alphabetical order.