Chironomus gelhausi Bouchard 2022, sp. nov

Autor: Jr, R. William Bouchard, Hayford, Barbara L., Ferrington Jr, Leonard C.
Rok vydání: 2022
Předmět:
ISSN: 0263-4937
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6366479
Popis: Chironomus gelhausi Bouchard sp. nov. Type material. Holotype: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 1 male (UMSP). Allotype: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 1 female (UMSP). Paratypes: MONGOLIA, Hovsgol Aimag, Moron Soum, Tunamal Nuur, 5.5 km west of Arbulag, N 49.89920, E 99.39433, 1871 m, 7.vii.2006, leg. J.K. Gelhaus, 14 males, 2 females (UMSP [10 males, 1 female], ANSP [4 males, 1 female]). Etymology. Named for Jon K. Gelhaus, the collector of the material used for this study and a friend and colleague of the authors. Jon Gelhaus was also influential in setting the first author (RWB) on the path of studying insects and Diptera in particular. Diagnostic characters. Males can be separated from other Chironomini by the combination of the following: fused antepronotal lobes; pulvilli present; antenna with 11 flagellomeres; well-developed inferior and superior volsellae; setae on the base of the superior volsella; inferior volsella distally and dorsoventrally broadened, but not greatly expanded as in most Kiefferulus; and lack of median setae on anal tergite. More specifically, males can be separated from other species of Chironomus s. lat. (see treatment of taxonomy in ���Remarks��� section) by the combination of the following: large, conical frontal tubercles; antennae lacking typical plume; an apical truncation of the wing; AR 1.27���1.70; shortened palps; mid and hind tarsi reduced; long inferior volsellae extending well beyond gonostylus; parallel-sided anal point which rapidly constricts distally into a small point; setae present on ventral side of extension of superior volsellae; and lack of median setae on anal tergite. Females can by separated from other Chironomini by the following: squama with setae; antenna with 5 flagellomeres; palps with 5 segments; pulvilli present; front tibia with low, rounded scale; mid and hind tibia with 2 spurs; gonocoxapodeme rounded and not joined mesally; lack of setae on gonocoxite IX; gonapophyses VIII divided into dorsomesal lobe and well-developed ventrolateral lobe; cerci large; and segment X expanded forming a collar around basal half of cerci although not as well developed as in Fleuria. More specifically, females can be separated from other species of Chironomus s. lat. by the combination of the following: large, conical, frontal tubercles; reduced palps; an apical truncation of the wing; mid and hind tarsi reduced; gonocoxite IX without seta; apodeme lobe weak, without microtrichia; and segment X with more than 20 setae. Description Male imago (n=15, unless otherwise stated). Total length 8.40���13.47, 9.80 mm (n=14). Wing length 3.79���4.32, 4.15 mm. Total length/wing length 1.98���3.21, 2.36 (n=14). Wing length/length of profemur 3.99���6.09, 4.48 (n=14). Coloration brown to pale brown (alcohol preserved specimens), wings hyaline and without markings. Antenna (n=6) (Fig. 1A). Antennae missing from most specimens. Antenna with 11 segments and antennal plume reduced; AR 1.27���1.70, 1.54. Ultimate flagellomere 629���815, 737 ��m long. Longest antennal seta 183���363, 275 ��m long (n=4), most setae missing in some specimens. Head (Fig. 1B). Temporal setae 17���35, 28 ��m; including 3���8, 5 inner verticals, 6���14, 10 outer verticals, and 7���16, 13 postorbitals. Clypeus with 5���22, 16 setae. Frontal tubercle 88���153, 114 ��m high, 105���170, 139 ��m wide, well developed and conical shaped with apical end constricted (Fi. 1B). Frons covered in dense microtrichia with microtrichia longest on frontal tubercles. Tentorium, stipes and cibarial pump as in Figure 1C. Tentorium 230���325, 281 ��m long; 55���84, 68 ��m wide at sieve plate and 40���70, 55 ��m wide at tentorial pit. Stipes 175���294, 267 ��m long; 10���17, 14 ��m wide. Palp segment lengths (n=12): 75���124, 92; 60���90, 75; 198���278, 235; 51���270, 141; 116���153, 131. Third palpomere (Fig. 1D; n =14) with 11���19, 15 sensilla, longest 10���24, 16 ��m long. Thorax. Tubercle well developed. Antepronotum with no setae. Dorsocentrals 10���19, 15, all short and decumbent; acrostichals 6 (n=1), all short and decumbent, starting midway between antepronotum and tubercle, typically not visible when laterally mounted although two setal scars were apparent on tubercle on one specimen; prealars 7���11, 9. Scutellum with 6���15, 10 setae. Wing (Fig. 2A). Apical tip of wing truncated; VR 1.02���1.11, 1.07. Brachiolum with 3���5, 4 setae; R 18���27, 24; R 1 with 0 setae; R 4+5 with 2���8, 4 setae; other veins and cells bare. Squama with 13���26, 18 setae. Legs (Figs, 2B, C). Mid and hind legs reduced in length (Fig 2B). Scale of fore tibia 24���60, 43 ��m long (Fig 2C); spur of mid tibia 29���53, 41 ��m long; spur of hind tibia 30���59, 43 ��m long (Fig 2C) although hind tibia spur reduced or missing on some specimens. Comb on mid tibia 18���31, 24 ��m long, with width of combs on mid tibia similar; comb on hind tibia 18���38, 25 ��m long, one comb on hind tibia much wider than the other (Fig 2C). Width at apex of fore tibia 145���175, 161 ��m; width at apex of mid tibia 120���189, 170 ��m; width at apex of hind tibia 160���213, 193 ��m. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 1. Hypopygium (Fig. 3). Rotated up to 180�� in all specimens examined. Tergite IX covered with microtrichia, with no median setae anterior of the anal point and 39���61, 50 setae on each side of base of anal point (Fig. 3E); anal tergite bands forming a shallow ���U��� and not reaching the base of anal point (Fig. 3A). Laterosternite IX with 0 setae. Anal point broad, parallel-sided and rapidly constricting to a small point, 92���115, 104 ��m long, 40���78, 65 ��m wide at base, 59���78, 69 ��m wide medially, 5���15, 11 ��m wide near apex; T-shaped in cross section. Transverse sternapodeme 390���525, 468 ��m long, nearly straight (Fig. 3B). Phallapodeme 445���636, 556 ��m long. Superior volsella and 280���380, 340 ��m long, 76���125, 101 ��m wide at base, 24���54, 40 ��m wide at apex, with 27���38, 31 setae on the ventral side and extending to approximately the midpoint of the medially directed extension; dorsal side of the superior volsella with microtrichia only present on base and ventral side with microtrichia extending approximately 2/3 of the superior volsellae (Fig. 3C). Median volsella absent. Inferior volsella extending beyond apex of gonostylus 662���1118, 902 ��m long, 48���145, 70 ��m wide at base, 66���194, 115 ��m wide at apex, dorsoventrally expanded distally, and covered with numerous simple, stout setae (Fig. 3D). Gonocoxite 403���732, 558 ��m long. Gonostylus 414���690, 538 ��m long, robust, dorsoventrally expanded, and with numerous stout setae, especially on the inner margin (Fig. 3D). HR 0.79���1.22, 1.04. HV (n=14) 1.42���2.65, 1.87. Female imago (n=3, unless otherwise stated). Total length 8.53���9.24, 8.79 mm. Wing length 5.02���5.24, 5.11 mm. Total length/wing length 1.64���1.84, 1.72. Wing length/length of profemur 4.32���5.07, 4.63. Coloration as in male. Antenna (Fig. X). AR 0.51���0.67, 0.57. Flagellomere lengths (in ��m): 234���264, 245; 123���130, 127; 114���121, 117; 128���143, 133; 303���400, 353. Longest antennal seta 129���170, 150 ��m long. Head (Fig. X). Well-developed conical frontal tubercles, frontal tubercle 59���86, 76 ��m high, 91���100, 96 ��m wide, with conspicuous microtrichia. Frons as in male. Temporal setae 22���25, 24; including 3���4, 3 inner verticals, 9���11, 10 outer verticals, and 8���13, 10 postorbitals. Scapus setae 0���8, 5. Clypeus with 22���33, 28 setae. Tentorium 275���311, 292 ��m long; 49���85, 64 ��m wide at sieve plate and 31���50, 40 ��m wide at tentorial pit. Stipes 270���296, 283 ��m long; 10���16, 13 ��m wide. Palp segment lengths (n=2; in ��m): 79���104, 92; 55���80, 68; 226���275, 251; 128��� 130, 129; 136���173, 155. Third palpomere (n=2) with 19���26, 23 sensilla, longest 11���15, 13 ��m long. Thorax. Tubercle well developed. Antepronotum with no setae. Dorsocentrals 13���19, 15, all short and decumbent; apparently 0 acrostichals, although they may not be visible in laterally mounted specimens as in the male; prealars 7���9, 8. Scutellum with 7���16, 11 setae, uniserial. Wing. Apical tip of wing truncated as in male; VR 1.08���1.13, 1.10. Brachiolum with 3���4, 4 setae; R with 29���35, 32 setae; R 1 with 1���11, 5 setae; R 4+5 with 13���24, 18 setae; other veins and cells bare. Squama with 14���17, 16 setae. Legs. Mid and hind legs reduced in length. Scale of fore tibia 33���45, 37 ��m long; spur of mid tibia 40���44, 41 ��m long; spur of hind tibia 31���34, 33 ��m long (n=2). Comb on mid tibia 20���25, 23 ��m long, with width of combs on mid tibia similar; comb on hind tibia 22���23, 23 ��m long (n=2), one comb on hind tibia much wider than the other. Width at apex of fore tibia 125���135, 130 ��m; of mid tibia 154���165, 158 ��m; of hind tibia 179���187, 182 ��m. Lengths and proportions of legs as in Table 2. Abdomen. Tergite VIII with 32���37, 34 setae. Sternite VIII with 122���179, 149 setae and no lateral setae. Genitalia (Fig. 4). Gonocoxite IX without setae. Tergite IX with 51���56, 53 setae. Gonocoxapodeme rounded and not joined mesally. Segment X expanded forming a collar around basal half of cerci with 64-78, 71 setae. Cercus large, expanded anteriorly and irregularly shaped, 355���424, 393 ��m long. Seminal capsule 273���346, 320 ��m long and 194���241, 217 ��m wide. Notum 367���383, 376 ��m long. Gonapophyses VIII divided into a dorsomesal lobe and well-developed ventrolateral lobe; apodeme lobe weak, without microtrichia. Pupa: unknown Larvae: unknown Remarks. Currently, we lack consensus regarding the placement and status of Chironomus subgenera and closely related genera (Cranston et al. 1989, Martin et al. 2007, Epler et al. 2013) which complicates placement of C. gelhausi. Cranston et al. (1989) recognized several subgenera (i.e., Camptochironomus, Lobochironomus, Chaetolabis, and Chironomus s. str.). Fleuria and Baeotendipes are included as separate genera in Cranston et al. (1989), but this publication also noted that these two genera are probably subordinate within Chironomus. Epler et al. (2013) treats Baeotendipes and Fleuria as part of Chironomus s. lat. although it is also noted that inclusion of Fleuria with Chironomus does not imply synonymy. In addition, Epler et al. (2013) indicated that Camptochironomus should be synonymized with Chironomus s. str which is supported by molecular studies of phylogenic relationships within the genus (Guryev et al. 2001, Martin et al. 2007). Although a fuller description of the status of Chironomus and closely related genera is beyond the scope of this paper, it is relevant to the generic placement of C. gelhausi. Here we follow the classification of Martin et al. (2007) and Epler et al. (2013) where Chironomus s. lat. consists of the subgenera Chironomus s. str., Chaetolabis, and Lobochironomus (including Einfeldia Group C). The genus Chironomus s. lat. also includes ��� Baeotendipes ��� which may be part of Chironomus s. str. or a separate subgenus. The taxa Fleuria and Benthalia (Einfeldia species group B) are considered to likely be distinct genera closely related to Chironomus. In addition to our lack of consensus regarding the placement and status of Chironomus subgenera and closely related genera, the placement of C. gelhausi is complicated by several morphological characteristics which are apparently unusual due to its surface-mating habit. It has been demonstrated that in other surface mating Chironomidae taxa with highly specialized morphology, placement into a genus using only morphology can be problematic (e.g., Andersen et al. 2016, Qi et al. 2018). However, the morphology in C. gelhausi is not so specialized for surface mating to make generic placement ambiguous, particularly within the broader concept of Chironomus s. lat. (sensu Epler et al. 2013). As such, C. gelhausi fits reasonably well within the diagnosis for the genus Chironomus. The following characters for C. gelhausi are consistent with the adult male diagnosis for Chironomus s. lat. in Cranston et al. (1989): 11 flagellomeres; fused antepronotal lobes; pulvilli present; well-developed inferior and superior volsellae; and setae on the base of the superior volsellae. This species differs from the Chironomus s. str. diagnosis in Cranston et al. (1989) in that setae are present on the ventral side of the extension of the superior volsella which is bare in other Chironomus s. str. species. Although superior volsellae differ in shape between C. gelhausi and Chironomus (Chaetolabis), both taxa possess setae on the ventral side of the superior volsellae indicating that this character occurs within Chironomus s. lat. In addition, median anal tergite setae are absent in C. gelhausi which is unusual in Chironomus s. lat.; however, these setae are also absent in some surface-mating Chironomus s. str. species (e.g., Chironomus pallidivittatus Malloch and Chironomus tepperi Skuse) (Cranston et al. 1989, Martin 2022). The mean antennal ratio for males of C. gelhausi was only 1.54 which differed from the diagnostic antennal ratios for Chironomus s. lat. (greater than 2.0; Cranston et al 1989) and ��� Baeotendipes ��� (approximately 2.0; Cranston et al. 1989). However, the lower antennal ratio is also observed in other surfacing mating taxa (e.g., Fleuria antennal ratio = 0.64; Song et al. 2017). Thus, there is no discrepancy placing C. gelhausi in Chironomus s. lat. if the lower antennal ratio in C. gelhausi can be attributed to its surface-mating habit. Similarly, C. gelhausi differs from the diagnoses for most other Chironomus species (Cranston et al. 1989) by possessing reduced palps, reduced mid and hind legs, and a robust gonostylus densely covered with setae on the inner margin. However, some or all of these characters are also observed in some Chironomus s. str. and ��� Baeotendipes ��� species and can presumably be attributed to surface mating. The species C. gelhausi shares several morphological characteristics with Fleuria including truncated wings, large and conical frontal tubercles, reduced palps and mid and hind legs, lack of median anal tergite setae, and robust gonostylus densely covered with setae on the inner margin. However, these characters are likely to be homoplastic and related to the shared surface-mating habit of these taxa. In addition, the hypopygia of these two taxa are very different with Fleuria possessing a globular hypopygium with short, wide superior and inferior volsellae and a short, kidney-shaped gonostylus (Cranston et al. 1989). However, the distinctive hypopygial characters in Fleuria may represent strongly modified morphology associated with surface-mating and therefore is possibly autapomorphic within the species. Another species which may represent a second species of Fleuria with a more typical hypopygium, Chironomus natchitocheae Sublette (Cranston et al. 1989), also does not have hypopygial characters which would indicate affiliation with C. gelhausi. Placement of C. natchitocheae within Benthalia (Einfeldia Group B) has also been suggested (J. Martin pers. com., Epler 2019) based on the presence of a longitudinal row of median setae on the anal tergite. However, C. gelhausi lacks median anal tergite setae which indicates that it does not belong within Benthalia. The species C. gelhausi shares some characters with Kiefferulus including the presence of setae on the ventral side of the extension of the superior volsella and the lack of median setae on the anal tergite in some species. However, in males of C. gelhausi, the inferior volsella is not as strongly expanded distally and in the female there are no apically pointed scales on the dorsomesal lobe (Cranston et al. 1990). Overall, morphological characters do not indicate that C. gelhausi should be placed in Fleuria, Benthalia, or Kiefferulus. The female of C. gelhausi also fits within Chironomus s. lat. although some characters are not consistent with the diagnosis in Saether (1977). For example, the apodeme lobe in C. gelhausi does not appear to bear microtrichia although this may be consistent with some Chironomus. For example, microtrichia are not shown on the illustration of the apodeme lobe Chironomus aprilinus Meigen (as Chironomus halophilus Kieffer) in Saether (1977). Segment X also has large extensions which bear more than 20 setae on each side in C. gelhausi. However, in C. gelhausi the apodeme lobe is not fused with the dorsomesal lobe and the extensions on segment X are not expanded to the extent observed in Fleuria. The expanded segment X and the lack of setae on gonocoxite IX could be associated with surface mating although we are not aware of previous discussions regarding how these genitalic characters may be advantageous for surface-mating species. In general, additional comparative analyses of the females between Chironomus and related genera is needed. Although C. gelhausi fits reasonably well into the genus Chironomus, it may not key out correctly in existing keys for adult males and females (e.g., Cranston et al. 1989, Saether 1977) due the apically truncated wing, reduced palps, reduced mid and hind tarsi, and other characters associated with surface mating. In both Cranston et al. (1989) and Saether (1977), C. gelhausi will likely key out as Fleuria, although for both the male and female, these couplets do not match all of the characters used in the couplets for Fleuria. As a solution, we suggest, the following amendment to the dichotomous key in Cranston et al. (1989): 2. Wing apically with angled truncation and antenna with fewer than 10 flagellomeres (Fig. 10.22).......... Fleuria (p. 379) - Wing apically rounded. Antenna with 11���13 flagellomeres (Acalcarella exceptionally has 9 flagellomeres). If wing apically with
Published as part of Jr, R. William Bouchard, Hayford, Barbara L. & Ferrington Jr, Leonard C., 2022, Chironomus gelhausi, a new species of surface-mating Chironomus Meigen, 1803 (Diptera: Chironomidae) from Mongolia, pp. 123-135 in Zootaxa 5116 (1) on pages 124-133, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.5116.1.6, http://zenodo.org/record/6364372
{"references":["Cranston, P. S., Dillon, M., Pinder, L. C. V. & Reiss, F. R. (1989) Keys and diagnoses of the adult males of the subfamily Chironominae (Diptera, Chironomidae). Entomologica Scandinavica, Supplement, 34, 353 - 502.","Martin, J., Blinov, A., Alieva, E. & Hirabayashi, K. (2007) A molecular phylogenetic investigation of the genera closely related to Chironomus Meigen (Diptera: Chironomidae). In: Andersen, T. (Ed.), Contributions to the Systematics and Ecology of Aquatic Diptera - A Tribute to Ole A. Saether. The Caddis Press, Columbus Ohio, pp. 193 - 203.","Epler, J. H., Ekrem, T. & Cranston, P. S., (2013) The larvae of Chironominae (Diptera: Chironomidae) of the Holarctic region - keys and diagnoses. In: Andersen, T., Cranston, P. S. & Epler J. H. (Eds.), Chironomidae of the Holarctic region: Keys and diagnoses, Part, 1. Insects and Systematics & Evolution, Supplement, 66, 387 - 556.","Guryev, V., Makarevitch, I., Blinov, A. & Martin, J. (2001). Phylogeny of the genus Chironomus (Diptera) inferred from DNA sequences of mitochondrial cytochrome b and cytochrome oxidase I. Molecular Phylogenetics and evolution, 19 (1), 9 - 21. https: // doi. org / 10.1006 / mpev. 2001.0898","Andersen, T., Baranov, V., Hagenlund, L. K., Ivkovic, M., Kvifte, G. M. & Pavlek, M. (2016) Blind flight? A new troglobiotic orthoclad (Diptera, Chironomidae) from the Lukina Jama - Trojama Cave in Croatia. PloS One, 11 (4), e 0152884. https: // doi. org / 10.1371 / journal. pone. 0152884","Martin, J. (2022) Australian and Pacific Chironomus species. Available from: http: // www. chironomidae. net / Martin / AustChironfiles / AustChiron. html (Accessed February 21, 2022)","Song, C., Wang, Q., Sun, B., Liu, W. & Wang, X. (2017) Fleuria Kieffer, 1924 (Diptera: Chironomidae) a newly recorded genus from China. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 93, 218 - 225. https: // doi. org / 10.3956 / 2017 - 93.4.218","Epler, J. H. (2019) Corrections and additions for Epler's \" Identification manual for the larval Chironomidae (Diptera) of North and South Carolina \". Available from: http: // johnepler. com / CorAdd-NS. html (Accessed February 21, 2022)","Cranston, P. S., Webb, C. J. & Martin, J. (1990) The saline nuisance chironomid Carteronica longilobus (Diptera: Chironomidae): a systematic reappraisal. Systematic Entomology, 15 (4), 401 - 432. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / j. 1365 - 3113.1990. tb 00074. x","Saether, O. A. (1977) Female genitalia in Chironomidae and other Nematocera: morphology, phylogenies, keys. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 197, 1 - 209.","Hein, J. & Schmulbach, J. C. (1971) Intraspecific and interspecific breeding behavior of Chironomus pallidivittatus (Diptera: Chironomidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 103 (3), 458 - 464. https: // doi. org / 10.4039 / Ent 103458 - 3","Laurie, A., Jamsranjav, J., van den Heuvel O. & Nyamjav, E. (2010) Biodiversity conservation and the ecological limits to development options in the Mongolian Altai: formulation of a strategy and discussion of priorities. Central Asian Survey, 29, 321 - 343. https: // doi. org / 10.1080 / 02634937.2010.528188","Hilker, T., Natsagdorj, E., Waring, R. H., Lyapustin, A. & Wang, Y. (2014) Satellite observed widespread decline in Mongolian grasslands largely due to overgrazing. Global Change Biology, 20, 418 - 428. https: // doi. org / 10.1111 / gcb. 12365","Tao, S., Fang, J., Zhao, X., Zhao, S., Shen, H., Hu, H., Tang, Z., Wang, Z. & Guo, Q. (2015) Rapid loss of lakes on the Mongolian Plateau. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 2281 - 2286. https: // doi. org / 10.1073 / pnas. 1411748112","Bouchard, R. W., Jr. & Gelhaus, J. K. (2020) First record of a skating crane fly: The unusual ecology, behavior, and morphology of Phantolabis lacustris (Alexander, 1938) (Diptera: Limoniidae) with descriptions of the immature stages. Freshwater Science, 39, 86 - 100. https: // doi. org / 10.1086 / 707406","Neumann, D. (1976) Adaptations of chironomids to intertidal environments. Annual Review of Entomology, 21, 387 - 414. https: // doi. org / 10.1146 / annurev. en. 21.010176.002131","Fittkau, E. J. (1968) Siolimyia amazonica n. gen. n. spec., eine flugfahige Chironomide (Diptera) mit einem Hypopygium inversum. Amazoniana, 1, 259 - 265.","Wirth, W. W. (1979) Siolimyia amazonica Fittkau, an aquatic midge new to Florida with nuisance potential. Florida Entomologist, 62, 134 - 135. https: // doi. org / 10.2307 / 3494090","Fedorova, M. V. & Zhantiev, R. D. (2009) Structure and function of the Johnston's organ in Fleuria lacustris Kieff. Males (Diptera, Chironomidae). Entomological Review, 89, 896 - 902. https: // doi. org / 10.1134 / S 001387380908003 X"]}
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: