Opius baderae Wharton, 2013

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Opius baderae Wharton, 2013 ZooKeys 349: 16-18, 29-31.
Remarks
The specimens from Durango and Guatemala vary slightly in the color of the mesoscutum and since they are also unassociated with hosts, they have been excluded from the paratype series.

For all specimens, the apparent color pattern on the metasoma varies with preservation. The anterior median white patches are not fully visible when the terga are in their normally retracted position. Similarly, the hyaline posterior margins are not readily visible in normally retracted position because they lie over the dark part of the tergite.

Holotype: Female, deposited in UNAM.

Diagnosis and Relationships
Members of the Opius baderae species group (to which this species belongs) will key to Opius (Opius) in the subgeneric keys of Fischer (1972), 1977, (1999) because of the completely concealed labrum, unsculptured precoxal sulcus, and absence of a midpit on the mesoscutum. They differ from the type species of Opius (i.e., Opius s.s.) in lacking a basal lobe ventrally on the mandible, and thus would key to Phaedrotoma Foerster in the classification of van Achterberg and Salvo (1997) and Li et al. (2013) and the key to genera in Fischer (1999). In members of the baderae group the propodeum is also almost completely unsculptured. Within the baderae species group, this species is nearly identical to O. cablus Wharton, but the ovipositor is slightly shorter in relation to body size. Opius baderae attacks a larger host tephritid and is consequently distinctly larger than O. cablus.
Description
Eyes in dorsal view not or only slightly bulging beyond temples (Fig. 2), temples not receding. Clypeus (Fig. 4) 1.5–1.6 x wider than high, weakly punctate throughout; completely concealing labrum when mandible closed, ventral margin of clypeus evenly convex, slightly overlapping dorsal margin of mandible when mandible closed. Antenna with 39–43 (male) and 44–45 (female) flagellomeres. Malar sulcus (Fig. 3) weak, deeper adjacent eye, becoming shallower towards mandible. Mesosoma (Figs 5-7) 1.25–1.3 (male) and 1.2 (female) x longer than high. Pronotum laterally with vertical groove varying from almost completely smooth and unsculptured to crenulate throughout, margined anteriorly by carina dorsally and ventrally in some specimens, distinct carina absent in others. Propodeum largely unsculptured, with a few weak carinulae along posterior margin, especially medially. Fore wing (Fig. 8) 3RSa 1.75–1.95 x longer than sinuate 2RS; (RS+M)a very weakly sinuate. T1 (Figs 9-11) 2.2–2.35 x wider at apex than at base, 0.95–1.1 x as long as apical width; finely striate over apical 0.7, smooth basally; dorsal carina extending to apical margin of T1 but low and weakly differentiated over posterior 0.5–0.7, not strongly elevated basally. Ovipositor (total length) 2.0 x longer than mesosoma; ovipositor sheath 1.5–1.6 x longer than mesosoma. Color (Figs 1-3, 5-7, 9, 10): Head entirely black to dark red-brown above, usually with small, light brown spot between base of antenna and eye, entirely white below horizontal line extending laterally from dorsal margin of clypeus through ventral margin of eye to occipital carina, base of mandible and all remaining mouthparts also white. Mesosoma black except propleuron pale to dark yellow, tegula and basal wing sclerite pale yellow, axillae and lateral 0.2–0.3 of metanotum yellow to dark yellow, and mesoscutum variegated: yellow with dark brown to black median band over anterior 0.75 and a dark blotch covering most of lateral lobe on each side. Metasomal terga dark brown to black; T3–T7 with narrow hyaline margin posteriorly, T7 band broader in female; T4–T6 also with median white band anteriorly. Fore and mid tibiae and all femora white, hind femur usually with pale brown subapical spot; hind tibia dark brown over basal 0.2, brown posteriorly over at least apical 0.5, otherwise variegated: usually paler subbasally, dorsally, and anteriorly, varying from whitish or dark yellow to brown. Body length 3.2–3.8 mm; wing length 3.8–4.85 mm; mesosoma length 1.2–1.5 mm.
21839_mximage
1.Opius baderae habitus
21842_mximage
2. Opius baderae head dorsa...
21843_mximage
3. Opius baderae head later...
21835_mximage
4.Opius baderae face
21836_mximage
5. Opius baderae mesoscutum...
21840_mximage
6. Opius baderae mesosoma l...
21841_mximage
7. Opius baderae propodeum ...
21848_mximage
8. Opius baderae fore wing...
21846_mximage
9. Opius baderae metasoma...
21844_mximage
10. Opius baderae metasoma d...
21847_mximage
11.Opius baderae petiole
 
Distribution
Type locality: Mexico, Chiapas, Chiquihuites, 15º05’N, 92º06’W.
Also know from Durango, Mexico (10 miles west of El Salto) and Guatemala (Quiche, 2 km S Chichicastenango, on Rio Tesoro)
Distribution
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
A parasitoid of Eutreta xanthochaeta Aldrich (Tephritidae) reared from stem galls of Lippia substrigosa Turcz. The fly is best known as the lantana gall fly for its use in Hawaii and Australia, where it was purposefully introduced early in the 1900s as a biological control agent for the introduced weed Lantana camara L. Both L. substrigosa and L. camara are members of the Verbenaceae. For this sample of stem galls, the rate of parasitism was 29.4%.
Map

There are no specimens currently determined for this OTU, or those specimens determined for this OTU are not yet mappable.

Label data
Holotype labels:

MEXICO: Chiapas
Chiquihuites, -15º05’N
92º06’W, Union Juarez,

Second label:
S slope Volcan Tacaná
1800–2000m, 31.×.1993
A.L. Norrbom & C. Estrada

Third label:
reared ex. stem galls
Lippia substrigosa
Turcz (93M7)

Fourth label:
reared ex. puparium
Eutreta xanthochaeta
(Tephritidae)

Acknowledgements
This page was assembled largely by Bob Wharton and Andrew Ly. It is part of a revision of New World, mostly neotropical, opiines reared from non-frugivorous Tephritidae conducted by Wharton and Norrbom (2013). We are particularly grateful to Danielle Restuccia, Patricia Mullins, Trent Hawkins, Lauren Ward, and Gabriella Vasquez, who did all of the imaging and especially Danielle for preparing the plates. Paul Marsh initially made much of this material available to the senior author. Amy Bader initiated work on this particular species and her assistance paved the way for this revision. Matt Yoder and Istvan Miko provided guidance on databasing issues associated with our use of mx and HAO respectively. We thank David Wahl (AEIC), Norm Penny and Bob Zuparko (CAS), Andrew Bennett and Henri Goulet (CNC), Max Fischer and Dominique Zimmermann (NHMW), and Paul Marsh and Robert Kula (Systematic Research Laboratory, USDA; USNM) for facilitating loans and general assistance associated with examination of holotypes and other material in their care. This work was supported largely by NSF DEB 0949027, with REU supplement 1313933 (to Wharton) and partly by NSF/PEET DEB 0328922 (also to Wharton). Page last updated January, 2014.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers DEB 0949027 and DEB 0328922 with REU supplement 1313933.
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.