Taxonomic status of genera and species of Euaphidius mackauer and Remaudierea Starý (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Aphidiinae) based on morphological and molecular analyses of 28s rRNA and COI genes

Abstract

Taksonomski status roda Euaphidius Mackauer, sa dve opisane vrste E. cingulatus (Ruthe) i E. setiger Mackauer, je poslednjih decenija pod znakom pitanja. Ove dve vrste su u literaturi obično razmatrane u okviru roda Aphidius Nees. Međutim, na osnovu nekih morfoloških karakteristika, pre svega, tentorijalnog indeksa kao i njihove biologije, Mackauer (1961) ih je izdvojio u poseban rod, Euaphidius. Rod Remaudierea Starý, sa jednom opisanom vrstom R. plocamaphidis Starý je sličan vrstama roda Aphidius i Euaphidius, pre svega po nervaturi krila i obliku petiolusa. Morfološka i genetička varijabilnost tri parazitske ose E. cingulatus, E. setiger i R. plocamaphidis, kao i njihov taksonomski položaj u odnosu na vrste roda Aphidius, su analizirani metodama „tradicionalne“ i geometrijske morfometrije, kao i analizom sekvenci mitohondrijalnog gena za citohrom oksidazu 1 (mt COI) i varijabilnog D2 regiona gena za veliku ribozomalnu subjedinicu 28S (28S rRNK). „Tradicionalnom“ morfometrijom utvrđeni su karakteri koji su pokazali najveću varijabilnost u morfologiji između analiziranih vrsta. To su pokazali karakteri odnos dužine pterostigme i dužine R1 nerva, broj rinarija na prvom flagelarnom članku, kao i broj dlačica u gornjoj areoli propodeuma. Analizom oblika prednjih krila uz primenu geometrijske morfometrije uočeno je da vrste roda Euaphidius imaju kraći R1 nerv i šira krila u centralnom delu u odnosu na vrste roda Aphidius. Takođe, vrsta E. cingulatus se razlikuje od vrste E. setiger užim krilom u centralnom delu i dužim distalnim delom prednjeg krila. Molekularnom analizom na osnovu mtCOI i 28S rRNK gena su utvrđene male razlike između rodova Euaphidius i Remaudierea, kao i izabranih vrsta roda Aphidius. Kombinacija sve tri primenjene metode nije potvrdila status roda Eupahidius. Sve analizirane vrste (E. cingulatus, E. setiger i R. plocamaphidis) su premeštene u rod Aphidius, s tim što se vrste E. cingulatus i R. plocamaphidis izdvajaju u okviru podroda Euaphidius, a E. setiger u podrod Aphidius.Taxonomic status of the genus Euaphidius Mackauer with two described species E. cingulatus (Ruthe) and E. setiger Mackauer has been questionable over past few decades. In the literature, these two species are considered within the genus Aphidius. However, based on some morphological characteristics, such as tentorial index, also biology of analysed species, Mackauer (1961) raised them into the separate genus, Euaphidius. The genus Remaudierea Starý, which was described by the only known species R. plocamaphidis Starý, resembles Aphidius and Euaphidius species, primarily by the wing venation pattern and the shape of a petiole. Morphological and genetic variability of the species E. cingulatus, E. setiger and R. plocamaphidis, and their taxonomic position in relation to the Aphidius species, were analysed using traditional and geometric morphometrics, as well as using molecular analysis of cytochrome oxidase 1 (mtCOI) and the variable D2 region of the ribosomal gene 28S (28S rRNA). Using traditional morphometrics method, characters that showed the greatest variability in morphology among analysed species were identified. The significant variability was detected over ratio values: the length of pterostigma and the length of R1 vein, the number of olfactory grooves (rhinaria) on the first segment of antenna and the number of setae in the upper lateral areola of the propodeum. Analysis of the forewing shape using geometric morphometrics showed that the species from the genus Euaphidius have shorter R1 vein and wider wings in medial part than in species from Aphidius. Likewise, the species E. cingulatus is discriminated from E. setiger by a narrower forewings in the central part and generally, they wings are longer in the distal part. On the basis of molecular analysis of the mtCOI and 28S rRNA genes, small genetic differences among genera Euaphidius and Remaudierea, and selected Aphidius species were determined. The combination of three applied methods was not confirmed the status of genus Euaphidius. We have changed the status of E. cingulatus, E. setiger and R. plocamaphidis including them in the genus Aphidius. The species E. cingulatus and R. plocamaphidis are joined in the subgenus Euaphidius, while E. setiger is transferred in the subgenus Aphidius