ZOOTAXA

ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)

ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition)Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press

Zootaxa 3753 (4): 391–397

www.mapress.com/zootaxa/Article

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3753.4.8

http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D7A900A9-CF7F-4FB8-BE2F-E6A3039BE84A

A new phytophagous eulophid wasp (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae)

that feeds within leaf buds and cones of Pinus massoniana

XIANGXIANG LI1, ZHIHONG XU1,4, CHAODONG ZHU2, JINNIAN ZHAO3& YUYOU HE3

1Department of Plant Protection, School of Agriculture and Food Science, Zhejiang Agriculture & Forestry University, Lin’an, Zheji-

ang 311300, China2Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China.3Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Fuyang, Zhejiang, 311400, China4Corresponding author. E-mail: zhhxu@zju.edu.cn

Abstract

Aprostocetus pinus sp. nov. (Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae) is newly described as a leaf bud and microstrobilus pest of Pinus

massoniana (Pinales: Pinaceae), an important afforestation species in southeast China. Both sexes of the parasitoid are

described and illustrated.

Key words: Aprostocetus, economic importance, plant host

Introduction

Aprostocetus Westwood (Chalcidoidea: Eulophidae) is a cosmopolitan genus that currently includes 758 species

(Noyes 2012), of which 8 are recorded from Zhejiang (Wu et al. 2001; Zhu & Huang 2001; He et al. 2004; Xu &

Huang 2004) among 35 species known to occur in China (Perkins 1912; Li & Nie 1984; LaSalle & Huang 1994;

Sheng & Zhao 1995; Yang 1996; Zhu & Huang 2001, 2002; Yang et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2007; Weng et al. 2007;

Noyes 2012). Graham (1987) recognized five subgenera in Aprostocetus: Tetrastichodes Ashmead, Ootetrastichus

Perkins, Coriophagus Graham, Chrysotetrastichus Kostjukov and Aprostocetus Westwood, and LaSalle (1994)

added a sixth subgenus, Quercastichus LaSalle.

The majority of species of Aprostocetus are parasitoids of insects, but here we describe a new phytophagous

species that feeds within leaf buds and cones (microstrobili) of Pinus massoniana (Pinales: Pinaceae). This tree is

the most widespread species of Pinus in China and is of major importance in afforestation projects in the Yangtze

River Basin and southeast China (Sun 2005). For this reason we are describing this new species in order to

facilitate further research on its biology and economic importance.

Material and methods

Specimens of the parasitoid reared from leaf buds and cones (microstrobili) of P. massoniana were preserved in

75% ethanol and subsequently air dried and examined with a Leica M125 stereomicroscope. Photographs were

taken with a Hitachi TM-1000 Scanning Electron Microscope, Nikon ECLIPSE 80i, and Nikon AZ100.

Morphological terms follow Graham (1987) and Gibson et al.(1997). The following abbreviations are used:

ocular-ocellar line (OOL) is the minimum distance between a posterior ocellus and the eye; the posterior ocellar

line (POL) is the minimum distance between the posterior ocelli; OD is the major diameter of a lateral ocellus; F1

is the first segment of the funicle, F2 the second, and F3 the third; and C1 is the first segment of the clava, C2 the

second, and C3 the third.

Type specimens of the newly described species are deposited in the Department of Plant Protection, School of

Agriculture and Food Science, Zhejiang Agriculture & Forestry University, Hangzhou, China (ZAFU).

Accepted by G. Gibson: 26 Nov. 2013; published: 8 Jan. 2014 391

Taxonomy

Aprostocetus Westwood 1833

Aprostocetus Westwood, 1833: 444. Type species: Aprostocetus caudatus WestwoodAsyntomosphyrum Girault, 1913: 71. Type species: Asyntomosphyrum pax Girault. Synonymized by Bouček, 1988: 676.Blattotetrastichus Girault, 1917: 257. Type species: Entedon hagenowii Ratzeburg. Synonymized by Graham, 1961: 36.Duotrastichus Girault, 1913: 257. Type species: Duotrastichus monticola Girault. Synonymized by Bouček, 1988: 677.Epentastichus Girault, 1913: 205, 229. Type species: Epitetrastichus speciosissimus Girault. Synonymized by Bouček, 1988:

676.Gyrolachnus Erdös, 1954: 365. Type species: Gyrolachnus longulus Erdös. Synonymized by Graham, 1961: 44.Hadrothrix Cameron, 1913: 175. Type species: Hadrothrix purpurea Cameron. Synonymized by Graham, 1987: 129.

For more complete lists of synonymies see Graham (1961, 1987), Bouček (1988), LaSalle (1994) and Noyes

(2012).

Description. Body metallic or non-metallic, with or without pale markings.

Head with malar sulcus present, usually straight or only slightly curved, occasionally foveate below eye. Eyes

and ocelli fully developed. Mandible tridentate with outer tooth acute, middle and inner teeth progressively more

obtuse. Female antenna with scape and pedicel having weakly engraved or obsolescent reticulation; anelli discoid

to laminar, usually 4, rarely 3 or 2; funicle usually with 3, rarely 4, segments; clava most often with 3 segments but

sometimes 2 owing to obsolescence of the second suture, very rarely solid. Male antenna with sculpture of scape

and pedicel as in female; funicle with 4 segments, segments often with a whorl of elongate setae, clava with 3

segments.

Mesosoma with pronotum usually short or very short (rarely moderately long), without a transverse carina.

Mid lobe of mesoscutum nearly always with 1 row of adnotaular setae on each side (rarely with 2 or 3 rows), the

anterior setae usually shorter than posterior setae. Setae of pronotum and mesoscutum not all equal in length.

Scutellum nearly always at least slightly broader than long; normally with 2 pairs of setae which are almost always

nearer to submedian than to sublateral lines; submedian lines usually distinct (occasionally weak, rarely absent);

sublateral lines neither broad nor deep. Propodeum with reticulation varying from obsolescent to slightly raised,

never very strong; median carina present; plicae and paraspiracular carinae absent; spiracles in most species

moderate-sized and suboval, very close to metanotum (occasionally very small and subcircular or very rarely

large), the outer part of their rim nearly always partly covered by a raised flap of the callus. Legs with hind coxa

lacking dorsolateral longitudinal carina; first segment of mid and hind tarsi at least as long as second (sometimes

very slightly shorter) in most species. Wings nearly always macropterous (rarely shortened or almost rudimentary);

costal cell with a row of setae on lower surface; submarginal vein usually with 2 or more dorsal setae (rarely only 1

seta); parastigma hardly ever marked off from marginal vein by a decolourized area; postmarginal vein absent to at

most half as long as stigmal vein.

Gaster not strongly sclerotized, collapsing to a greater or lesser degree on air-drying; ovipositor sheaths usually

projecting at least slightly (in rare cases even longer than the body), but occasionally not projecting; cercus most

often with one seta slightly to very distinctly longer than the other and usually more or less sinuate or kinked near

middle. Anterior margin of female hypopygium trilobed.

Remarks. Species of Aprostocetus can be separated from other genera of Tetrastichinae by the characters

given in keys by Graham (1987, 1991) and LaSalle (1994). The description given above illustrates the great deal of

morphological variation that is found within Aprostocetus, but as a general rule species can be recognized by

having the following combination of characters: submarginal vein with 3 or more dorsal setae, one of the cercal

setae distinctly longer than the remaining setae and sinuate, propodeal spiracle partially covered by a raised lobe or

flap on the callus, malar sulcus straight or only slightly curved, and mesosternum usually flat just anterior to

trochantinal lobes.

For notes on the Chinese species see Graham (1987), Sheng & Zhao (1995), Yang (1996), Wu et al. (2001),

Zhu & Huang (2001, 2002), Yang et al. (2003), Xu & Huang (2004), Weng et al. (2007). At present there is no key

to Chinese species of Aprostocetus.

Biological notes. With a very wide host range, but most often inhabiting plant galls made by insects, such as

Diptera (Cecidomyiidae) or sometimes Hymenoptera (Cynipoidea),occasionally Coleoptera or Coccoidea, and

rarely gall-inhabiting Acari (Graham 1987). Only a single species of Aprostocetus has been definitely shown to be

LI ET AL.392 · Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press

a gall inducer: A. colliguayae (Philippi) which induces galls on Colliguaja odorifera Molina (Euphorbiaceae) in

Chile (Martinez et al. 1992; La Salle 2005).

Distribution. Worldwide.

Aprostocetus pinus Li & Xu sp.nov.

(Figs 1–17)

Type material. HOLOTYPE (♀, ZAFU). CHINA: Zhejiang: Hangzhou, Chun’an, Laoshanisland, 300m, 29°15’N

118°25’ E, 15.iv.2011, Jinnian Zhao.

PARATYPES (5♀ 3♂, ZAFU). Same data as holotype, 5 slide-mounted, 3 tag-mounted.

Etymology. Named after the host genus.

Description. Female (Figs 9, 10). Body length 1.6 mm; dirty yellow with metallic luster and some areas of

dark brown. Head with face dirty yellow and occiput dark brown. Antenna dark brown. Coxae, femora and tibiae

dirty yellow, tarsi black brown. Wings hyaline, venation dirty yellow. Propodeum dark brown, shiny. Gaster nearly

black but first tergite partly dirty yellow.

Head (Figs 1, 2) 0.8× as broad as mesoscutum, in facial view about 1.2× as broad as long and in dorsal view

temple about 0.13× length of eye; ocellar triangle delimited by a sulcus in front and at sides; POL about 1.5× OOL,

OOL 1.6× OD. Eye about 1.5× as long as wide, separated by 1.2× length of eye, and surrounded by very short

pubescence. Malar space 0.62–0.65× length of eye, malar sulcus with a triangular fovea extending 0.2× its length.

Mouth broader than malar space. Head with exceedingly fine superficial reticulation, vertex and upper face with

sparse setae; vertical setae about 0.75× OD. Antenna (Fig. 11) with scape about 0.8× length of eye, about 4.2× as

long as broad, nearly reaching median ocellus; pedicel 2.3× as long as broad, slightly shorter than F1; funicle

stouter than pedicel, with each segment subequal in length (sometimes slightly shorter distally), F1 3×, F2 2.3×,

and F3 2× as long as broad; clava broader than funicle, 2.1× as long as broad and slightly shorter than F2 plus F3;

C1 shorter than broad but occupying nearly half length of clava, C2 transverse, C3 even shorter, both flat when air-

dried, terminal spine short; sensilla moderately numerous, in an irregular row on each segment, about 0.7× as long

as respective segment, decumbent with tip projecting slightly.

Mesosoma (Fig. 3) dorsally convex, nearly as broad as head. Pronotum crescentic, 0.4× as long as

mesoscutum, with superficial raised reticulation and scattered setae, including a row of longer setae near hind

margin. Mid lobe of mesoscutum broader than long, moderately convex, slightly metallic shiny, with raised

reticulation, the areoles 7–10× as long as broad and more superficial than on pronotum; median line complete but

fine and weak; with 6 adnotaular setae on each side, the most posterior ones subequal in length to scutellar setae.

Scutellum about 0.8× as long as wide, strongly convex, sculptured like mesoscutum; submedian lines distinct,

separated from reach other by about 1.4× distance from sublateral lines, nearly parallel, anteriorly slightly bending

outwards, submedian lines enclosing a space 2.4× as long as wide; with 2 pairs of setae, anterior pair behind

posterior third of scutellum, setae subequal in length, nearly as long as distance between submedian lines.

Dorsellum nearly semicircular, 4× as broad as long, divided into three areas, with lateral areas having several

wrinkles. Propodeum (Fig. 5) medially short, as long as dorsellum, but longer laterally, with depressed carina thin

and distinct where separated in posterior third; reticulation similar to pronotum; spiracle oval, comparatively large

with diameter slightly less than length of propodeum medially, very close to anterior margin propodeum; callus

with 2 setae, one of which is longer than the other. Legs with several setae on coxae, tibiae and femora; hind coxa

with fine superficial reticulation and larger areoles compared to mesoscutum; mid tibial spur slightly longer than

basitarsus, and fourth tarsomere subequal in length to basitarsus. Fore wing (Fig. 13) about 2.1× as long as broad,

extending beyond apex of gaster; costal cell about 0.7× as long as marginal vein and 6× as long as broad, with a

row of setae; submarginal vein with 5 dorsal setae; marginal vein about 3× length of stigmal vein; stigmal vein at

about 45° angle, narrow at base but expanding slightly for half its length; postmarginal vein rudimentary; speculum

small, closed below marginal vein; wing with moderately thick pilosity. Hind wing apically obtuse or subobtuse;

cilia about 0.27× as long as breadth of wing.

Gaster (Fig. 7) in dorsal view pointed-ovate, tergites with raised reticulation similar to pronotum and with

sparse setae; subequal in length to head plus mesosoma or 1.4× as long as mesothorax and about 1.8× as long as

wide or 0.84× as wide as mesosoma; T1 occupying 0.46× length of gaster; ovipositor sheaths slightly exerted; cerci

with two pairs of cercal bristles, the longest about 1.8× times length of next longest.

Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 393A NEW PHYTOPHAGOUS EULOPHID WASP THAT FEEDS ON PINUS

FIGURES 1–8. Aprostocetus pinus sp. nov.: 1, ♀ head, front view; 2, ♀ head, dorsal view; 3, ♀ mesosoma; 4, ♂ mesosoma; 5, ♀ propodeum; 6, ♂ propodeum; 7, ♀ metasoma; 8, ♂ metasoma.

LI ET AL.394 · Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press

FIGURES 9–17. Aprostocetus pinus sp. nov.: 9, ♀ body dorsal view; 10, ♀ body lateral view; 11, ♀ antenna; 12, ♂ antenna; 13, ♀ forewing dorsal; 14, ♂ forewing dorsal; 15, parasitized leaf bud; 16, wasp in leaf bud; 17, parasitized microstrobilus.

Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 395A NEW PHYTOPHAGOUS EULOPHID WASP THAT FEEDS ON PINUS

Male. Length about 1.1 mm. Body nearly black with distinct metallic luster; gaster nearly black with metallic

luster except first tergite with variably yellowish luster. Ocelli yellowish, eyes dull red.

Head strongly collapsed in air-dried specimens; vertex and face with sparse setae. Antenna (Fig. 12) with scape

slightly shorter than eye, with ventral plaque about 0.24× length of scape; pedicel about 2× as long as broad, a little

longer than F1; proximal funicle segment subequal in width to pedicel. Sculpture similar to female.

Mesosoma (Fig. 4) width subequal to head. Similar to female except mid lobe of mesoscutum slightly broader

than long with median line more distinct; scutellum about 0.9× as long as wide with 2 pairs of setae; propodeal

spiracle (Fig. 6) smaller than for female. Forewing hyaline, venation yellow, about 2.1× as long as broad, costal cell

8.5× as long as broad and about 0.76× as long as marginal vein. Hind wing subobtuse apically; cilia 0.4× as long as

breadth of wing.

Gastral tergites with same reticulation as propodeum and with sparse setae.

Remarks. Aprostocetus pinus resembles A. lacunatus Graham as follows: macropterous with fore wing

extending beyond tip of gaster, hyaline, and with dense pilosity; body tending to be slightly shiny; mesosoma

moderately arched; mid lobe of mesoscutum with a single row of adnotaular setae on each side and median line at

least vague; cercus with one seta 1.8–2.0× the length of the next longest seta; antenna with scape shorter than eye;

and malar sulcus expanded below eye, forming a subtriangular fovea that extends more than 0.2× the length of the

sulcus. It is distinguished from A. lacunatus by the following: body dirty yellow with dark brown areas, metallic

shiny (vs black, non-metallic); antenna dark brown (vs antennal scape testaceous beneath at apex); coxae partly and

tarsi mainly black, and femora and tibiae wholly yellow (vs coxae and femora mainly black, with tips of femora,

tibiae partly or wholly, and tarsi mainly, testaceous); wings hyaline, venation dirty yellow (vs wings subhyaline,

venation brownish testaceous to brown); midlobe of mesoscutum with fine, weak raised reticulation having areoles

7–10× as long as broad (vs with superficial fine, slightly raised reticulations having areoles 2–3× as long as broad);

submedian lines further from each other and from sublateral lines (vs about equidistant from each other and from

sublateral lines); callus with 2 setae (vs 3–5 setae); spur of mid tibia slightly longer than basitarsus (vs 0.75× length

of basitarsus), and fourth tarsomere subequal to basitarsus (vs slightly shorter than basitarsus).

Girault (1916) described Epitetrastichus semiauraticeps, which was reared from a large bud gall on Pinus

scopulorum, and was later transferred to Tetrastichus by Burks (1943) and then to Aprostocetus by LaSalle (1994).

Our new species can be separated from A. semiauraticeps by the following: gaster in dorsal view pointed-ovate,

and subequal in length to the rest of body (vs conic-ovate and distinctly longer than rest of body); body dirty yellow

with dark brown areas, metallic shiny (vs dark metallic blue green); venation yellow (vs black ); legs with femora

entirely dirty yellow (vs legs golden yellow except coxae, and femora except apically); pedicel slightly shorter than

F1 ( vs subequal to F1); postmarginal vein rudimentary (vs a short but distinct postmarginal vein present), median

line of mesoscutum fine and weak but complete (vs median line of mesoscutum sometimes completely absent).

Distribution. Laoshan Island, Chun’an, Zhejiang province, China.

Host and biological information. The new species was reared from leaf buds and cones (microstrobili) of

Pinus massoniana with only a single wasp developing in each affected leaf bud and microstrobilus. The larvae feed

entirely within the leaf buds (Fig.15) and microstrobilus with affected leaf buds shoots becoming distinctly curved

(Fig. 16) or the microstrobili (Fig. 17) becoming sterile and turning red and wilting. Average longevity of

specimens is about 7 days after eclosion.

Acknowledgements

We thank to Prof. Jian Hong and Mr. NianhangRong (Zhejiang University) for their essential technical assistance

for the scanning electron micrographs and Junhao Huang (ZAFU) for help with the photomacrographs. We are also

obliged to Dr. J. LaSalle (CSIRO) for his taxonomic advice. Dr. J.S. Noyes (BMNH) helped us in revising the

original manuscript. This work was supported by the Hangzhou Science and Technology development program

(No. 20091832B46), the public welfare technology application research project of Zhejiang (No.2010C32072) , the

ZAFU Development Funds, NSFC-NSF project 31361123001 and The Key Laboratory for Quality Improvement

of Agricultural Products of Zhejiang Province, College of Agriculure and Food Science, Zhejiang A & F

university, Lin’ an, Zhejiang, 311300, China.

LI ET AL.396 · Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press

References

Bouček, Z. (1988) Australasian Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). A biosystematic revision of genera of fourteen families, with a

reclassification of species. CAB International Wallingford, Oxon, 832 pp.Burks, B.D. (1943) The North American parasitic Wasps of the Genus Tetrastichus-a Contribution to Biological Control of

Insect Pests. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 93, 505–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.93-3170.505

Gibson, G.A.P., Huber, J.T. & Woolley, J.B. (1997) Annotated keys to the genera of Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera). NRC Research Press, Ottawa, 794 pp.

Girault, A.A. (1916) New North American Hymenoptera of the family Eulophidae. Proceedings of the United States National

Museum, 51, 125–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.5479/si.00963801.2148.125

Graham, M.W.R.d.V. (1961) The genus Aprostocetus Westwood sensu lato (Hym., Eulophidae) notes on the synonymy of European species. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 97, 34–64.

Graham, M.W.R.d.V. (1987) A reclassification of the European Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), with a revision of

certain genera. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology), 55 (1), 1–392.Graham, M.W.R. de V. (1991) A reclassification of the European Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae): revision of the

remaining genera. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 49, 1–322.He, J.H. (2004) Hymenopteran insect fauna of Zhejiang. Science Press, Beijing, 1373 pp.LaSalle, J. (1994) North American genera of Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Journal of Natural History, 28, 109–

236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222939400770091

La Salle, J. (2005) Biology of gall inducers and evolution of gall induction in Chalcidoidea (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae, Eurytomidae, Pteromalidae, Tanaostigmatidae, Torymidae). In: Raman, A., Schaefer, C.W. & Withers, T.M. (Eds.), Biology, ecology, and evolution of gall-inducing arthropods. Science Publishers, Inc., Enfield, New Hampshire, USA, pp. 507–537,

LaSalle, J. & Huang, D.W. (1994) Two new Eulophidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea) of economic importance from China. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 84, 51–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007485300032223

Li, J. & Nie, W.Q. (1984) Bionomics of Tetrastichus hagenowii parasitizing the oothecae of Periplaneta fulginosa. Acta

Entomologica Sinica, 27, 406–409.Martinez, E., Montenegro, G. & Elgueta, M. (1992) Distribution and abundance of two gall-makers on the euphorbiaceous

shrub Colliguaja odorifera. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 65 (1), 75–82.Noyes, J.S. (2012) Universal Chalcidoidea Database. World Wide Web electronic publication. Available from: http://

www.nhm.ac.uk/chalcidoids (accessed June 2012).Perkins, R.C.L. (1912) Parasites of insects attacking sugar cane. Bulletin of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association

Experiment Station (Entomology Series), 10, 1–27. Sheng, J.K. & Zhao, F.X. (1995) A new species of Aprostocetus from China (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae: Tetrastichinae). Insect

Science, 2, 308–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.1995.tb00052.x

Sun, H.L. (2005) Ecosystem of China. Science Press, Beijing, 1822 pp.Weng, L.Q., He, L.F., Chen, X.F. & Xu, Z.F. (2007) First description of Aprostocetus asthenogmus (Waterston) from China

(Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Natural Enemies of Insects, 29 (2), 88–91.Westwood, J.O. (1833) LXXIII. Descriptions of several new British forms amongst the parasitic hymenopterous insects.

Philosophical Magazine Series 3, 2, 443–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14786443308648084

Wu, G.Y., Xu, Z.H. & Lang, X.J. (2001) A New Species of the Genus Aprostocetus Westwood (Hymenoptera:Eulophidea) from China. Forest Research, 14, 530–532.

Xu, Z.H. & Huang, J. (2004) Chinese fauna of parasitic wasps on scale insects. Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers, Shanghai, 524 pp.

Yang, Z.Q. (1996) Parasitic wasps on bark beetles in China (Hymenoptera). Science Press, Beijing, 351 pp.Yang, Z.Q., Wang, C.Z. & Liu, Y.M. (2003) A new species in the genus Aprostocetus (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) parasitizing

pupa of fall webworm from Yantai, Shandong Province, China. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 39, 87–90.Zhang, Y.Z., Ding, L., Huang, H.R. & Zhu, C.D. (2007) Eulophidae fauna (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) from south Gansu and

Qinling Mountains area, China. Acta Zootaxonomica Sinica, 32, 6–16.Zhu, C.D. & Huang, D.W. (2001) A Taxonomic Study on Eulophidae from Zhejiang, China (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Acta

Zootaxonomica Sinica, 26, 533–547.Zhu, C.D. & Huang, D.W. (2002) A taxonomic study on Eulophidae from Guangxi, China (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea). Acta

Zootaxonomica Sinica, 27, 583–607.

Zootaxa 3753 (4) © 2014 Magnolia Press · 397A NEW PHYTOPHAGOUS EULOPHID WASP THAT FEEDS ON PINUS