Piogaster lucida Constantineanu & Constantineanu, 1969

Piogaster lucida Constantineanu & Constantineanu, 1969 a: 157 [Romanian].

Piogaster lucida Constantineanu & Constantineanu, 1969 b: 173 [French].

Diagnosis.

Piogaster lucida can be distinguished from its congeners by possession of the combination of the following: 1) mesoscutum impunctate and polished and 2) metasomal T 2 – T 5 smooth with very sparse punctation anteriorly and laterally. This species is most similar to P. albina which shares the highly polished, impunctate mesoscutum (Fig. 4 E), but can be distinguished by the densely punctate metasomal T 2 – T 5 of P. albina (Fig. 5 H).

Redescription.

Adult. Female. Body length 5.0 mm. FW length 4.0 mm. Head. Number of flagellomeres unknown [antenna about half length of body]. Clypeus width to height ratio and microsculpture unknown. Face and vertex microsculpture and setation unknown. Frons polished and smooth, setation unknown. Occipital carina complete. Ratio of MSL to BWM unknown. Ratio of OOD to LOD unknown. Mesosoma. Pronotum with epomia absent; sculpture and setation unknown. Mesoscutum polished, smooth with sparse white setae. Scutellum sculpture unknown. Mesopleuron sculpture unknown. Metapleuron medially to posteriorly smooth. Propodeum rugulose or rugose [wrinkled] (original description zbîrcit) and sparsely punctate. Propodeum with pleural carina complete but weak, other propodeal carina unknown. Wings. Fore wing. Vein Rs + M not specifically mentioned or drawn as having ramellus extending greatly into cell 1 M + 1 R 1 (only a rudimentary stub of ramellus indicated in habitus drawing). Vein 2 rs-m slightly shorter than M between 2 rs-m and 2 m-cu, but not measured. Vein 2 m-cu not thickened or angulate between bullae (based on habitus drawing). Hind wing. Vein 1 / Cu & cu-a angled where 2 / Cu intercepts, 2 / Cu intercepting in lower 0.5, 2 / Cu extending almost to wing margin. Metasoma. T 1 polished and smooth, without setae. T 1 with median dorsal carina only present in anterior half of anteromedial furrow; T 1 dorsolateral carinae present anteriorly for 0.5 × length of T 1. T 2 – T 5 polished, smooth, sparsely punctate anteriorly and laterally with whitish setae. T 6 – T 8 polished, smooth, sparsely punctate anteriorly, setae unknown. Tergites without grooves or tubercles. Ovipositor sheath 1.5 mm, hind tibia not measured. Colour. Head black. Vertex with oblong yellowish spot. Mandible colour unknown. Maxillary and labial palps colour unknown. Antenna brown with black scape. Mesosoma black except for the following: tegula red-brown, mesopleuron with some areas dark red to brown (see Constantineanu and Constantineanu 1969 a, 1969 b). Wing colour and transparency unknown, veins including stigma pale yellow, C + Sc + R brown. Femora white with black-brown longitudinal stripes on dorsal and ventral surface, fore and middle femur stripes larger than hind femur. Tibiae white with black-brown longitudinal stripe on dorsal surface. Tarsi with dorsal surface brown, anteroventral and posteroventral surfaces red-white. Fifth tarsomere apically red. Metasomal tergites black. Ovipositor sheath brown.

Male. Unknown.

Distribution.

Fig. 28. Romania.

Biology.

Unknown.

Material examined.

None. Piogaster lucida is known only from the holotype in the

Constantineanu collection (Iași, Romania) and was unavailable for examination.

Comments.

Piogaster lucida was originally described both in Romanian (Constantineanu and Constantineanu 1969 a) and French (Constantineanu and Constantineanu 1969 b) in the same year. We were unable to determine a date of publication for either. The date of the Romanian publication is listed as 1969 on the cover of the issue, but 1968 on the first page inside. The French publication is listed as received on August 16, 1968 but it does not include a publication date; another paper in the same issue was received on January 28, 1969 so it had to be published after this date. As no precise publication dates are available, ICZN Article 21.3. 2 requires adoption of 31 December 1969 for both, making them simultaneous. Both descriptions together constitute the original description. As we were unable to see the holotype, the diagnosis and description provided here are based on these descriptions.

Constantineanu and Constantineanu (1969 b) describe P. albina and P. lucida as differing by: 1) ovipositor sheath colour, with P. albina having a white band on the sheath and P. lucida having a completely brown ovipositor sheath, and 2) trochanter colour, with P. albina having trochanters with white apically, versus P. lucida in which the trochanters lack the white apically. However, we have seen multiple specimens of P. albina with completely brown ovipositor sheaths, and with trochanters completely dark brown-black.

We examined one Piogaster specimen from Hungary (Fig. 6 A) that we identify and treat here as P. albina, although it shows morphology intermediate between P. albina and P. lucida. In this specimen, the metasomal tergites have reduced punctation compared to other P. albina specimens (Figs 4 B, 5 H). The specimen also differs in the sculpture of the propodeum, which is almost completely smooth (Fig. 6 A), rather than wrinkled as in other examined specimens of P. albina (Figs 4 B, 5 D) and in the original description of P. lucida. This variation raises the possibility that if the propodeal sculpture in P. albina can be completely smooth while the specimen otherwise conforms to P. albina, then similar variation might also occur in the sculpture of the metasomal tergites. If so, P. lucida, which is diagnosed from P. albina primarily by the smooth sculpture of tergites T 2 – T 5, may represent a morphological variant of P. albina rather than a distinct species. However, because we were unable to examine the holotype of P. lucida or locate additional material matching the P. albina holotype condition, we could not investigate this.