Opius yoderi Wharton, 2013

Taxonomic History / Nomenclature
Opius yoderi Wharton, 2013 ZooKeys 349: 16-18, 66-68.
This species runs to Opius (Opius) in the keys and classification of Fischer (1977, 1983) due to the concealed labrum and absence of a mesoscutal midpit and absence of a sculptured precoxal sulcus. Alternatively, Opius yoderi would be placed in Phaedrotoma in the classification of Li et al. (2013), though with minor difficulty since the venation is more similar to that of Rhogadopsis. Fischer (1999) presented a revised classification, including the description of a new genus, Neotropopius Fischer. Only one species has ever been included in Neotropopius, the type species, N. hirtithorax Fischer. Opius yoderi fits the characterization of Neotropopius presented by Fischer (1999). Neotropopius was treated as a synonym of Phaedrotoma by Li et al. (2013) even though the presence of a median keel on the propodeum of the type species would seem to argue for a placement in Rhogadopsis.

The type series of O. yoderi is somewhat variable in features such as the length of the precoxal sulcus and the shape and sculpture of T1. The holotype also has slightly more extensive pale coloration on the lower face and malar space than in the paratypes.

Holotype: Female, deposited in UNAM.

Diagnosis and Relationships
Opius yoderi is readily differentiated from all other species of Opius s.l. known to attack non-frugivorous Tephritidae by the combination of widely antefurcal fore wing m-cu and densely setose mesoscutum. Opius taramegillae also has a densely setose mesoscutum but has a long, deep midpit that is lacking in O. yoderi. Opius yoderi has a shorter, broader T1 than Opius simplex Fischer from Costa Rica and O. columbicus Fischer from Colombia, the two previously described species that it most closely resembles. Further, T1–3 are darker in O. yoderi than in O. simplex and the second submarginal cell is more strongly narrowed distally in O. yoderi than in O. columbicus.
Habitus (Fig. 1). Eyes in dorsal view (Fig. 2) very slightly bulging beyond temples, temples very weakly receding; eye about 1.5–1.7 x longer than temple in dorsal view; 2.3–2.5 x longer than temple in lateral view (Fig. 3). Face and vertex moderately to densely setose; frons bare. Clypeus (Fig. 4) tall, somewhat oval, 1.3 x broader than tall, ventral margin not protruding in lateral view, without horn or spine-like protrusions, sharp, convex in anterior view; labrum completely concealed. Malar space about equal to basal width of mandible, malar sulcus weak, not deeply incised. Mandible (Fig. 4) with dorsal margin not deflected, without basal lobe ventrally, apical teeth not twisted. Occipital carina absent middorsally, widely separated from hypostomal carina at base of mandible. Antenna with 19–21 flagellomeres; first flagellomere about 2.5–3.0 x longer than wide, 1.05–1.25 x length of second. Maxillary palp shorter than height of head. Mesosoma (Figs 5-7) 1.4 x longer than high, 1.95 x longer than wide, 1.4 x higher than wide. Pronotum dorsally narrow, with large pronope; laterally bare, polished, with well-developed vertical carina all along anterior margin of median vertical groove. Mesoscutum (Fig. 5) with anterior declivity about as in O. taramegillae; notaulus and supramarginal carina completely absent; mesoscutum completely, uniformly densely covered with short, white, mostly decumbent setae; midpit absent. Precoxal sulcus distinctly though shallowly impressed, unsculptured (Fig. 6); extending from anterior margin in two specimens, confined to middle 0.3 of mesopleuron in third specimen, never reaching base of coxa. Metapleuron unsculptured medially, sparsely setose; median pit adjacent anterior margin and dorsal pit at posterior margin both relatively small, not connected by deep sulcus. Propodeal spiracle closer to anterior than posterior margin; propodeum (Fig. 7) sparsely setose, densely granular-rugulose throughout. Hind tibia without basal carina. Fore wing (Figs 8-9) with stigma narrowly wedge-shaped, merging imperceptibly with R1 distally, r arising from basal 0.3; 3RSa 1.4–1.5 x longer than 2RS, 2nd submarginal cell very strongly narrowing distally; 3RSb bowed, extending nearly to apex of wing; m-cu very widely antefurcal; 2CUb arising distinctly below middle of distal margin of 1st subdiscal cell, 1st subdiscal cell open apically, 2cu-a completely absent; 1cu-a weakly postfurcal; distance between anal vein and ventral wing margin slightly less than width of anal vein. Hind wing with RS and 2M equally developed as very weakly pigmented creases extending to wing margin, m-cu slightly weaker, extending at least 0.5 distance to wing margin. S1 short but visible, 0.15–0.2 x length of T1; T1 (Fig. 7) with laterope but without dorsope; largely smooth basally, striate over posterior 0.7; dorsal carinae distinct basally on either side of broad, shallow basal depression, usually extending nearly to posterior margin, less distinct posteriorly amongst striate sculpture; T1 0.9–1.1 x longer than apical width; apex 2.1–2.25 x wider than base. T2 and following terga unsculptured. Ovipositor (total length) approximately 0.8–0.9 x length of mesosoma; ovipositor sheath approximately 0.3–0.4 x length of mesosoma. Color (Figs 1-7): Dark brown, T2+3 light brown, tegula, clypeus, ventral margin of face from anterior tentorial pit through lower part of malar space, mandible (except apical teeth), palps, and most of legs yellow to very pale yellow; tarsi and apical 0.3–0.4 of hind tibia variously brown; wings hyaline. Body length 1.8–2.4 mm; wing length 2.6–2.7 mm; mesosoma length 0.95–0.75 mm.
1.Opius yoderi habitus
2. Opius yoderi head dorsal...
3. Opius yoderi head latera...
4.Opius yoderi face
5. Opius yoderi mesoscutum...
6. Opius yoderi head and me...
7. Opius yoderi propodeum a...
8.Opius yoderi wing
9.Opius yoderi wing
Type locality: Mexico, Morelos, Parque Lago de Zempoala.
No referenced distribution records have been added to the database for this OTU.
Biology / Hosts
All members of the type series were reared from flowers of the asteracean Dahlia imperialis but no flies were reared from this sample. Flowers of this same plant, collected from the same general locality two years later, yielded two different opiines: Doryctobracon anneae and Opius danielsae, reared from the tephritids Gymnocarena mexicana and Paracantha trinotata respectively. These flies and wasps are significantly larger than O. yoderi, and we predict a smaller tephritid is more likely the host to this particular wasp.

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: Morelos, Parque
Lag. de Zempoala, clear-
ing at entrance, 9–11.
VIII.1989, A.L.Norrbom

Second label:
reared ex. flowers
Dahlia imperialis
Roezl. ex Ort. (89M12)

Third label:

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. 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.