Andricus lustrans Beutenmüller, 1913

Andricus lustrans Beutenmüller, 1913: 244; Zhang et al. (2022: 69). Type material deposited in USNM and ANSP;
Callirhytis lustrans (Beutenmüller); Weld (1926: 95).

The history of Acraspis vaccinii is far more complicated. Osten-Sacken (1862: 255) characterized a gall from post oak, Q. stellata (as Q. obtusiloba Michx.), found by him on a tree in Washington (p. 241) in October 1861, but did not provide a name, nor rear any adult wasps. Later, Ashmead (1887: 127, 136) provided a name for this species, duplicating Osten-Sacken’s (1862) description of the gall, and adding a short description of the apterous adult wasps. Ashmead’s unfortunate choice of “vaccinii” as specific epithet for this species was in reference to Osten-Sacken’s (1862) mention of the gall shape: “their shape may be compared to that of the flowers of Vaccinium”. Acraspis vaccinii was later transferred to Zopheroteras Ashmead, 1897 (Ashmead 1897: 261). Later, Ashmead (1903: 148) formally designated A. vaccinii as the type species of Zopheroteras; this act referred only to adults and did not mention the galls.

Almost in parallel, Kieffer (1902: 97) assigned Acraspis vaccinii to Trigonaspis Hartig, 1840 and, later, Dalla-Torre and Kieffer (1910: 393) considered Zopheroteras (galls and adults) a junior synonym of Trigonaspis. Weld (1922: 9) resurrected Zopheroteras and synonymized Parateras Ashmead, 1887 under Zopheroteras. In the same study, Weld (1922) mentioned that the gall that Ashmead (1887) had described for Acraspis vaccinii corresponded to galls of a winged species which Beutenmüller (1918: 329) had previously described as Andricus impositus Beutenmüller, 1918, and stated that the true gall of Zopheroteras vaccinii had not yet been described; this was supported by the observation that Ashmead’s A. vaccinii adult wasps were apterous (Fig. 1). Hence, Weld (1922) concluded that Ashmead (1887) had misidentified the gall and misassociated adults of his new genus Zopheroteras with the galls described as Acraspis vaccinii.

However, the name confusion of these wasps was still developing. Based on gall, adult morphology and host, Weld (1926: 95) synonymised Andricus impositus with Andricus lustrans and transferred A. lustrans (= A. impositus) to the genus Callirhytis Foerster, 1869. In the same paper, Andricus dimorphus var. verifactor Kinsey, 1922 was synonymized under Callirhytis lustrans and the galls of Acraspis vaccinii were identified as those of C. lustrans.

Weld (1951: 650) considered Acraspis vaccinii (galls only) as a nomen nudum, under C. lustrans. However, we consider that this nomen nudum assignment was an error as the galls were described under that name, but erroneously associated with the adults described therein, resulting in a mixed type series. Weld (1951: 643) indicated Acraspis vaccinii (adult female only) as the type species of Zopheroteras.

More recently, Burks (1979: 1095, 1106) considered the adult wasps of Acraspis vaccinii as Zopheroteras vaccinii, but the galls as Callirhytis vaccinii Burks, 1979, listing Andricus lustrans, A. impositus and A. dimorphus var. verifactor as junior synonyms of the latter, thus mysteriously regarding Ashmead’s name as valid for two different taxa. It can, however, be considered that Burks (1979) effectively established a new species, Callirhytis vaccinii, for the galls since he referred to Ashmead’s description of them, complying with Article 13.1.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999). Finally, Zhang et al. (2022: 69) re-established the name Andricus lustrans as a valid species, removing it from Callirhytis.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999: Article 72.4.1) specifies that the type series includes all specimens that the author included in the new taxon “whether directly or by bibliographic reference” (except any disclaimed by the author). Article 73.2.1 reinforces this broad concept of syntypes, including specimens representing the work of an animal if described before 1931 (Article 1.2.1). Ashmead (1887: 136) quoted Osten-Sacken’s description of the gall, rather than writing his own, but also described two adult specimens (implied to have been reared from similar galls), so both components were properly described. He also stated that he had seen similar galls “on the Post Oak at Asheville, N.C.” Consequently, the type series must include the two adult female specimens, both labelled as “type 2866” (deposited in USNM and ANSP), plus the gall specimens that Ashmead saw from Asheville, and the gall specimens from Washington that Osten-Sacken used for his description. The USNM has several collections of galls, identified as Callirhytis vaccinii and matching the description, and collected on “Q. obtusiloba”, some from Florida, and others card-mounted without further data but labelled as “type 2866” (Fig. 2A); the latter may very well represent the Asheville specimens, but we cannot assume this since the type labels were undoubtedly later additions, and we thus do not consider them to be syntypes. Further galls in the USNM, also labelled as Callirhytis vaccinii, were collected by Ashmead in Florida, but on “Q. minor”, and so cannot be syntypes (although they have erroneously been labelled as cotypes, Fig. 2B). To add to the confusion, there are five galls in ANSP labelled as “type” of Acraspis vaccinii in a similar style to some of the USNM galls, but collected in Florida on “Q. obtusiloba”, and so also not syntypes. Unfortunately, the syntype galls are thus presumed to be lost, misplaced or unidentifiable as such. We hereby formally designate the USNM type 2866 (USNMENT802403) as the lectotype of Acraspis vaccinii Ashmead, 1887 (Fig. 1), and the specimen (also labelled as a type, number 2866) deposited in ANSP as a paralectotype. This fixes the name as applicable to the adult only.

The galls of Andricus lustrans (? = "Callirhytis vaccinii" galls) are similar to those of a recently described new species, Andricus chapmanii Melika & Abrahamson, 2021 (Melika et al. 2021), and also to the galls of Andricus vacciniiformis (Beutenmüller, 1913) and Andricus robustus Weld, 1926. In fact, Beutenmüller (1918) mentioned that the mature galls of A. lustrans resembled those of A. vacciniiformis, and Weld (1926) wrote that the gall of A. robustus had previously been described in connection with the adult of A. vacciniiformis, which must then have come from a gall of a different sort accidentally included in the breeding cage. So, what are the "Callirhytis vaccinii" galls (Fig. 2)? The oak host of A. lustrans is unknown, according to the original description, but the galls of A. impositus (junior synonym of A. lustrans) occur on Quercus stellata (as Q. minor (Marsh.) Sarg.), as do the galls of A. vacciniiformis and A. robustus, while A. chapmanii occurs on Q. chapmanii. Osten-Sacken's (1862) galls, and the others mentioned in Ashmead (1897), occurred on Quercus stellata (as Q. obtusiloba) as shown in the labels visible in Fig. 2A, thus those galls could belong to A. lustrans, A. vacciniiformis or A. robustus. The gall of A. lustrans is unknown according to the original description, but has recently been photographed (Zhang et al. 2022). According to the descriptions of these galls, the shape is globular with a nipple at the apex, while those of A. chapmanii are truncate at the apex and depressed centrally; Beutenmüller (1913) mentioned that A. vacciniiformis galls are similar to the huckleberry fruit or to Celtis occidentalis L. fruit, but these fruits have different shapes; huckleberry fruit is truncated distally and depressed centrally and C. occidentalis has a pointed fruit.

To this point, the identity of the huckleberry-flower-like galls (truncated distally and depressed centrally) from Osten-Sacken (1862), erroneously associated with the adults used by Ashmead (1887) in his description of Acraspis vaccinii (Fig. 2), is uncertain. Since there are no adult samples reared from Osten-Sacken (1862) galls, we cannot associate those galls with any of the species mentioned. We therefore designate Callirhytis vaccinii Burks, 1979 as a species incertae sedis.

Examining the adults, we found important differences (Table 1). Adults of A. vacciniiformis have all metasomal segments pubescent (Fig. 3D), while in A. lustrans, A. impositus and A. robustus the pubescence is restricted to the second metasomal segment only (Fig. 3A–C); which may be the reason why both Weld (1926: 81) and Kinsey (1922: 17) mentioned that the "vacciniiformis" gall was incorrectly associated. Additionally, Kinsey (1922) affirmed that "verifactor" galls are undoubtedly "vacciniiformis" galls, and described the former as a variety of A. dimorphus (both are clustered leaf galls), even though both the adults and the galls of A. dimorphus (spherical galls) and A. dimorphus var. verifactor (urn-shaped galls) are different. Also, the synonymy of A. lustrans and A. impositus is doubtful because the length of the ventral spine of the hypopygium is different (Fig. 3A, B). Andricus dimorphus var. verifactor has the metasomal terga micropunctate, similar to A. chapmanii, so it is not a synonym of A. lustrans. Finally, A. lustrans has simple tarsal claws (type material examined), while in A. impositus and A. robustus they are toothed. Concerning the tarsal claws, A. impositus is a valid species, and not a synonym of A. lustrans: Andricus impositus Beutenmüller, 1918 status revalidated. Regarding the metasomal sculpture, A. dimorphus var. verifactor (with micropunctures on metasoma) is a valid species, not a synonym of A. lustrans (with smooth metasoma): Andricus verifactor Kinsey, 1922, stat. nov.

- Juli Pujade-Villar, Y. Miles Zhang, Matthew L. Buffington, Denis J. Brothers, Irene Lobato-Vila, Victor Cuesta-Porta: (2023) On the specific epithet "vaccinii" of Ashmead, 1887 and Burks, 1979 (Hymenoptera, Cynipidae)^©