The Wharton Lab

Opius abnormis Wesmael, 1835: 117. ♀♂ Syntypes in Brussels.
Opius abnormis: Haliday 1837: 204 (redescription, habitat); Ratzeburg 1848: 62 (diagnosis, hosts).
Eurytenes abnormis: Foerster 1862Foerster 1862: 259 (genus description in key, abnormis as type species); Taschenberg 1866: 79, 87 (key, diagnosis); Marshall 1872: 122 (British catalog); Marshall 1891: 16-17 (redescription, English); Marshall 1894: 283-284, 291-292 (key, redescription, French); Dalla Torre 1898: 67 (catalog); Szépligeti 1904: 159, 163 (key, catalog); Niezabitowski 1910: 89 (distribution, brief characterization); Fischer 1959: 248-250 (redescription, hosts); Fulmek 1962: 47-50 (hosts); Fischer 1965: 165-167 (redescription, North American distribution); Fischer 1972: 472-475 (monograph); Marsh 1979: 202 (North American catalog); Papp 1985: 344-345 (color variation, distribution); Tobias and Jakimavicius 1986: 8, 96-98 (redescription in key, distribution); Tobias 1998 (redescription in key, distribution); Yu et al. 2005, 2012 (electronic catalogs).

In his monograph of the Palaearctic species, Fischer (1972) treated Opius paradoxus Ratzeburg, 1848 as a nomen nudum, while Dalla Torre (1898) listed it with a query as a synonym under E. abnormis, undoubtedly following Marshall (1891). Ratzeburg (1848), in his treatment of Opius, separated abnormis from all other species on the basis of the wing venation features that we now use to define Eurytenes s. s. Ratzeburg (1848) initially states that only a single species, abnormis, belongs to the section of Opius with the radius arising from the base of the stigma. In the following sentence, however, Ratzeburg introduces the name paradoxus, indicating that it also should be placed here. Though this can be interpreted to mean that Ratzeburg was treating paradoxus as a synonym of abnormis, nevertheless he also mentioned body coloration (dark) and clypeal characters (lack of opening between clypeus and mandibles) that differ from typical abnormis. Ratzeburg referred to Bouché throughout when discussing paradoxus and abnormis, and at the end of his treatment gives information on a more typical pale specimen of abnormis reared by Bouché. Whether intentional or otherwise, it would appear that Ratzeburg (1848) did provide a valid description of paradoxus with two characters that could be used to differentiate it from abnormis. However, his text could just as easily be interpreted to mean that paradoxus is invalid since it was first proposed as a synonym of abnormis. We prefer the latter interpretation.

Eurytenes abnormis is most readily recognized by the pale coloration of the petiole and metasoma and is further distinguished from the four North American species described by Walker and Wharton (2011) by the narrower, more ventrally concave clypeus. The petiole is narrower in E. abnormis than in E. dichromus and E. microsomus and is thus more similar in shape to the darker Mexican species E. pachycephalus.

A thorough redescription can be found in Fischer 1972: 472-475.

Previously recorded from throughout most of Europe (specifically Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, England, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, western Russia as far as the Urals, and Ukraine). Also recorded from eastern Palaearctic (Korea and Sakhalin Island), central to eastern Canada (Ontario, Saskatchewan) and USA (Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina). Specific references to individual records can be found in Yu et al. (2005, 2012) for the most part; the record from the Urals is from Tobias and Jakimavicius (1986). Fischer (1970) recorded E. abnormis from Montana; however, the specimen on which it is based was collected in Missouri (label information only indicated the state as Mo.). The records from Sakhalin (Tobias 1998) and Korea (Papp 1985) may need to be verified in light of other species described from that general region. The specimens we have examined from Taiwan and the Kuril Islands differ in wing venation, body coloration, and sculpture from typical E. abnormis. Papp (1985) also noted the darker coloration of the petiole of his Korean specimen.

In an initial summary of host records,Fischer (1959) listed 12 species of Agromyzidae, one Anthomyiidae, and one microlepidopteran as hosts but with no records of host plants. In this publication Fischer also noted that the anthomyiid and especially the microlepidopteran host (Coleophora nigricella Rondani) need verification. Fischer (1964) added four more dipterans to the list and later (Fischer 1969a, 1969b) provided additional records, including host plant information for nearly all of the known hosts. Nomenclatural updates for agromyzids and plant hosts from Fischer (1972) and Yu et al. (2005, 2012) are incorporated in the list of confirmed hosts given below, with additional updates from Ellis (2007: Bladmineerders van Europa / Leafminers of Europe. http://www.bladmineerders.nl/index.htm Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam. Accessed 13 August 2010.). Host plants for these 23 agromyzid hosts are split unevenly between monocots (8 fly species) and dicots (15 fly species). Four of the host fly species were reared from Asteraceae and four from Poaceae, whereas Lamiaceae, Ranunculaceae, and Cyperaceae each harbored three host fly species.

The agromyzid host records found in Fischer (1964, 1969a, 1969b) have a relatively high degree of confidence because these records pertain to rearings by Buhr, Groschke, and Nowakowski, respectively. Fischer identified the Eurytenes reared from these hosts (specimens in NHMW) and the hosts and host plants correspond well with information in Ellis (2007). Earlier literature, and several compilations based on the earlier primary sources, are problematic, however, because of the potential for misidentification of the wasp and/or host fly, as well as the absence of voucher specimens. We follow Fischer (1959) and treat the published host records for Pegomya bicolor (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) and Amauromyza verbasci (Bouché) dating to Bouché (1834), Ratzeburg (1848), and Rondani (1872) as almost certainly erroneous and likely based on misidentification of the other opiines that routinely attack these hosts or possibly on misidentification of the host. Records of non-dipteran hosts are clearly erroneous since members of the Opiinae are all parasitoids of cyclorrhaphous Diptera.

Host: Plant
Agromyza albitarsis Meigen: host plant for E. abnormis has not been recorded previously but since this fly is known to attack several trees in the family Salicaceae, the record may need to be verified;
Agromyza woerzi Groschke: Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult, Caprifoliaceae;
Amauromyza labiatarum (Hendel): Galeopsis tetrahit L., Lamiaceae;
Amauromyza lamii (Kaltenbach): Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.), Lamiaceae;
Cerodontha angulata (Loew): Carex hirta L., Cyperaceae;
Cerodontha caricivora (Groschke): Carex hirta L., Cyperaceae;
Cerodontha eucaricis Nowakowski: Carex hirta L., Cyperaceae;
Cerodontha flavocingulata (Strobl): Festuca pratensis Huds. (= Lolium pratense) and Holcus lanatus L., Poaceae;
Cerodontha incisa (Meigen): Alopecurus pratensis L. and Phleum pretense L., Poaceae;
Cerodontha iraeos (Robineau-Desvoidy): Iris pseudacorus L., Iridaceae;
Cerodontha pygmaea (Meigen): Dactylis glomerata L. and Deschampsia cespitosa (L.), Poaceae;
Liriomyza balcanica (Strobl): host plant for E. abnormis has not been previously recorded but this fly is known to attack members of the Euphorbiaceae;
Liriomyza demeijerei Hering: Artemisia vulgaris (L.), Asteraceae;
Liriomyza eupatoriana Spencer: Eupatorium cannabinum L., Asteraceae;
Liriomyza flaveola (Fallén):Festuca pratensis Huds., Poaceae;
Liriomyza scorzonerae Rydén: Scorzonera humilis L., Asteraceae;
Phytoliriomyza variegata (Meigen): host plant for E. abnormis has not been previously previously but this fly is known to attack members of the Fabaceae;
Phytomyza abdominalis Zetterstedt: Hepatica nobilis Mill., Ranunculaceae;
Phytomyza albimargo Hering: host plant for E. abnormis has not been recorded previously but this fly is known to attack Anemone in the Ranunculaceae;
Phytomyza fallaciosa Brischke: Ranunculus repens L., Ranunculaceae;
Phytomyza obscura Hendel: Clinopodium vulgare L., Lamiaceae;
Phytomyza pulmonariae Nowakowski: Pulmonaria angustifolia L., Boraginaceae;
Phytomyza senecionis Kaltenbach: Senecio nemorensis fuchsii (=Senecio fuchsii Celak), Asteraceae.

Opius abnormis Wesmael 1835 Nouv. Mém. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles 9: 117 ♀♂
Opius abnormis, Haliday 1837 Ent. Mag. 4: 204 ♀♂
Opius abnormis, Ratzeburg 1848 Ichneum. D. Forstins. II: 62
Eurytenes abnormis, Foerster 1862 Verh, naturh. Ver. Preuss. Rheinl. 19: 259.
Eurytenes abnormis, Taschenberg 1866 Hymen. Deutschl.: 87 ♀♂
Eurytenes abnormis, Marshall1891 Trans. Ent. Soc. London 11: 16 ♀♂
Eurytenes abnormis, Marshall 1894 Spec. Hymén. Europe, V: 292 ♀♂
Eurytenes abnormis, Dalla Torre 1898 Cat. Hymen., 4: 67.
Eurytenes abnormis, Szépligeti 1904 Genera insect., Fasc. 22: 163.

This page was assembled by Bob Wharton as part of a revision of the New World Eurytenes s. s. published by Walker and Wharton (2011). We are most grateful to the following curators or collection managers and institutions for providing access to material used in this study: David Wahl (AEI), Paul Dessart (deceased, Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique), Bill Mason (deceased, Canadian National Collection), Jeno Papp (Natural Museum of Natural History, Budapest), Max Fischer and Herbert Zettel (NHMW), Paul Marsh and Bob Kula (USNM), and John Sivinski (USDA/ARS, Gainesville, Florida). We also thank Matt Yoder (NC State University) for his support with mx and two anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions. This work was funded by the National Science Foundation Partnerships for the Enhancement and Education in Taxonomy (NSF-PEET) Grant DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement 1026618. Page last update February, 2013.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number DEB 0328922 and associated REU supplement 1026618.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.