Revision of Taiwanese and Ryukyuan species of Propristocera (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae), with description of a new species

Abstract

The genus Propristocera Kieffer was very recently revived from the synonymy of the genus Apenesia Westwood, and consists of a total of 25 valid species recorded from the Afrotropical, Oriental and Palaearctic regions. Only two of its species, P. formosimonticola and P. pingtungensis, have been previously recorded from Taiwan. In this study, we examined species of Propristocera collected from Taiwan and the Ryukyus based on external morphology, male genital morphology and molecular phylogenetic analyses, gene markers: nuclear 28SrDNA, mitochondrial COI. In consequence, four species were recognized. Propristocera okinawensis had its record expanded from the Ryukyus to Taiwan, whereas P. kusigematii previously known from the Ryukyus was synonymized under P. pingtungensis, which was known from Taiwan. Furthermore, one new species, Propristocera seediq sp. nov., was discovered in Taiwan and the Ryukyus.

Revision of Taiwanese and Ryukyuan species of Pristepyris Kieffer, 1905, with description of a new species (Hymenoptera, Bethylidae)

“…Pristocerine genera can be assigned to two higher groups, based on the morphology of male genitalia. The complete articulation between gonostipes and harpe was observed in the group P: Apenesia, Dissomphalus, Epynesia, Pristepyris sensu stricto, Pristocera and Propristocera in our study similar to earlier studies (Alencar et al 2018;Liao et al 2019;Alencar and Azevedo 2020). Contrastingly, the incomplete articulation or complete fusion between gonostipes and harpe was observed in group Q: Austranesia, Eleganesia and Epynesia (Alencar et al 2018;Liao et al 2021).…”

“…The type material (holotype only) of Pristepyris ryukyuensis lacks its metasoma. The morphological information of the male genitalia, which is indispensable for discriminating similar species, according to the general external morphology (Liao et al 2019(Liao et al , 2021 was unavailable. Therefore, the present study could not provide any evidence to support or reject the discrimination between P. ryukyuensis and P. tainanensis and between P. ryukyuensis and P. zhejiangensis.…”

“…Recently, Alencar et al (2018) and Azevedo et al (2018) significantly revised the classification of the subfamily Pristocerinae, by combining conventional morphological examination and molecular phylogenetic analysis. The revised classification is the best working hypothesis for further taxonomic and other related studies in specific geographic regions (Liao et al 2019(Liao et al , 2021.…”