Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:34:38.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The first Mesozoic stephanid wasp (Hymenoptera: Stephanidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Michael S. Engel  and
David A. Grimaldi
Michael S. Engel
Affiliation:
1Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence 66045–7523
David A. Grimaldi
Affiliation:
2Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024–5192
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The stephanid wasps are of great phylogenetic and biological significance among parasitic Hymenoptera, itself one of the major radiations of insects and of critical ecological and agricultural importance. The family, the only one of its superfamily (e.g., Gauld and Bolton, 1988; Goulet and Huber, 1993: although Rasnitsyn, 1988, 2000 includes the traditional Trigonalyoidea, Megalyroidea, Ceraphronoidea, and some extinct lineages in the Stephanoidea), is hypothesized by some authors to be basal within the diverse parasitoid lineage Apocrita (Rasnitsyn, 1975, 2000; Königsmann, 1978; Rohdendorf and Rasnitsyn, 1980; Whitfield, 1992, 1998; Vilhelmsen, 1996, 2001). Such a phylogenetic placement makes the stephanids an interesting link between the principally xylophagous wood wasps (i.e., the paraphyletic suborder Symphyta), the sole parasitic symphytan family Orussidae, and the remainder of the Apocrita (Orussidae + Apocrita = Euhymenoptera). Thus, stephanids may represent one of the earliest families of parasitoid wasps exhibiting the characteristic “wasp waist,” allowing for more control and flexibility during oviposition. Tantalizingly, the stephanids are morphologically similar to orussids in that both exhibit a characteristic series of tubercles on the head (presumably an adaptation for allowing them to move through burrows in wood after eclosion). These similarities, however, may be convergent adaptations of parasitizing wood-boring insects (a plesiomorphic biological trait across the Apocrita) and stephanids may belong to a clade of evaniomorphous wasps, albeit still relatively basal within that lineage (e.g., Rasnitsyn, 1988; Ronquist et al., 1999). In either case, Stephanidae figure prominently in cladistic studies of the Hymenoptera and are of presumably ancient origin based on their phylogenetic position (e.g., Rasnitsyn, 2000). Fossils of the family, however, are rare and until now have been restricted to Tertiary deposits.

Type
Paleontological Notes
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 78 , Issue 6 , November 2004 , pp. 1192 - 1197
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

van Achterberg, C. 2002. A revision of the Old World species of Megischus Brullé, Stephanus Jurine and Pseudomegischus gen. nov., with a key to the genera of the family Stephanidae (Hymenoptera: Stephanoidea). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 339:1–206.Google Scholar
Aguiar, A. P. 1998. Revisão do gênero Hemistephanus Enderlein, 1906 (Hymenoptera, Stephanidae), com considerações metodológicas. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 41:343–429.Google Scholar
Aguiar, A. P. 2001. Revision of the Australian Stephanidae (Hymenoptera). Invertebrate Taxonomy, 15:763–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguiar, A. P., and Janzen, J.-W. 1999. An overview of fossil Stephanidae (Hymenoptera), with description of two new taxa from Baltic amber, and key to species of Electrostephanus Brues. Entomologica Scandinavica, 30:443–452. (Publ. date: January 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashmead, W. H. 1900. Classification of the ichneumon flies, or the superfamily Ichneumonoidea. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 23:1–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belokobilsku, S. A. 1995. Superfamily Stephanoidea, p. 15–24. In Lehr, P. A. (ed.), Key to the Insects of the Russian Far East. Vol. IV. Neuropteroidea, Mecoptera, Hymenoptera. Part 2, Hymenoptera. Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, 596 + [3] p. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Benoit, P. L. G. 1951. Les stephanides Malgaches (Hymen.-Terebr.). Mémoires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar, serie A, 5:269–284.Google Scholar
Benoit, P. L. G. 1984. Stephanidae de l'Afrique occidentale et centrale (Hymenoptera). Revue de Zoologie Africaine, 98:215–228.Google Scholar
Brues, C. T. 1933. The parasitic Hymenoptera of the Baltic amber. Part 1. Bernstein Forschungen, 3:4–178.Google Scholar
Brullé, A. 1846. Histoire naturelle des insectes hyménoptères, p. 1–674. In Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau A. (ed.), Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. Hyménoptères, tome quatrième. Roret, Paris, viii + 680 p.Google Scholar
Carpenter, F. M. 1992. Superclass Hexapoda, p. 1–655. In Kaesler, R. L. (ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part R, Arthropoda 3–4. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.Google Scholar
Cockerell, T. D. A. 1906. Fossil Hymenoptera from Florissant, Colorado. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 50:33–58.Google Scholar
Elliott, E. A. 1922. Monograph of the hymenopterous family Stephanidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 92:705–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enderlein, G. 1905. Über die Klassifikation der Stephaniden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 28:473–477.Google Scholar
Enderlein, G. 1906. Neue Beiträge zur Kenntnis und Klassifikation der Stephaniden. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 47:289–306.Google Scholar
Engel, M. S. 2002. The fossil pelecinid Pelecinopteron tubuliforme Brues in Baltic amber (Hymenoptera: Pelecinidae). Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 11:5–11.Google Scholar
Fujiyama, I. 1994. Two parasitic wasps from Aptian (Lower Cretaceous) Choshi amber, Chiba, Japan. Natural History Research, 3:1–5.Google Scholar
Gauld, I., and Bolton, B. 1988. The Hymenoptera. Oxford University Press, Oxford, xi + 332 p.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T. 1989. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics, 4:105–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulet, H., and Huber, J. T. 1993. Hymenoptera of the World: An Identification Guide to Families. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, vii + [1] + 668 p.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, D., Shedrinsky, A., and Wampler, T. P. 2000. A remarkable deposit of fossiliferous amber from the Upper Cretaceous (Turonian) of New Jersey, p. 1–76. In Grimaldi, D. (ed.), Studies on Fossils in Amber, with Particular Reference to the Cretaceous of New Jersey. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.Google Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (fourth edition). International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, xxix + 306 p.Google Scholar
Jurine, L. 1800. Stephanus coronatus Jurine, fig. 13. In Panzer, G.W.F., Fauna Insectorum Germanicae initia, oder Deutschlands Insecten: Heft 79. Felsecker, Nürnberg [Nuremburg]. (dating from Sherborn, 1923)Google Scholar
Kieffer, J.-J. 1904. Description de Stéphanides et d'Evaniides nouveaux. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Metz, Cahier 23, 11:1–30.Google Scholar
Königsmann, E. 1978. Das phylogenetische System der Hymenoptera. Teil 3: “Terebrantes” (Unterordnung Apocrita). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 25:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, W. E. 1815. Entomology, p. 57–172. In Brewster, D. (ed.), The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, Vol. 9, Pt. 1. A. Balfour, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Vol. 1 (tenth edition). Reformata. Salviae, Holmiae [Stockholm], 824 p.Google Scholar
Madl, M. 1991. Zur Kenntnis der paläarktischen Stephanidae (Hymenoptera, Stephanoidea). Entomofauna, 12:117–126.Google Scholar
Madl, M. 1993. Eine neue Parastephanellus-Art von Halmahera (Indonesien) (Hymenoptera, Stephanoidea, Stephanidae). Entomologica Basiliensia, 16:393–395.Google Scholar
Orfila, R. N. 1949. Nuevos “Stephanidae” (Hym., Ichneum.) neotropicales. Acta Zoologica Lilloana, 7:339–352.Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1975. Hymenoptera Apocrita of the Mesozoic. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Akademii Nauk SSSR [Transactions of the Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences U.S.S.R.], 147:1–132. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1988. An outline of evolution of the hymenopterous insects (order Vespida). Oriental Insects, 22:115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasnitsyn, A. P. 2000. Testing cladograms by fossil record: The ghost range test. Contributions to Zoology, 69:251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdendorf, B. B., and Rasnitsyn, A. P. 1980. Historical development of the class Insecta. Trudy Paleontologicheskogo Instituta, Akademii Nauk SSSR [Transactions of the Paleontological Institute, Academy of Sciences U.S.S.R.], 175:1–269. (In Russian)Google Scholar
Ronquist, F., Rasnitsyn, A. P., Roy, A., Eriksson, K., and Lindgren, M. 1999. Phylogeny of the Hymenoptera: A cladistic reanalysis of Rasnitsyn's (1988) data. Zoologica Scripta, 28:13–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherborn, C. D. 1923. On the dates of G.W.F. Panzer's ‘Fauna Insect. German.’, 1792–1844. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, series 9, 11:566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichel, J. 1861. Liste des Hyménoptères recueillis en Sicile par M. E. Bellier de la Chavignerie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 7:749–764.Google Scholar
Smith, F. 1861. Descriptions of new species of hymenopterous insects collected by Mr. A. R. Wallace at Celebes. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society, 5:57–93.Google Scholar
Townes, H. 1949. The Nearctic species of the family Stephanidae (Hymenoptera). Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 99:361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilhelmsen, L. 1996. The preoral cavity of lower Hymenoptera (Insecta): Comparative morphology and phylogenetic significance. Zoologica Scripta, 25:143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilhelmsen, L. 2001. Phylogeny and classification of the extant basal lineages of the Hymenoptera (Insecta). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 131:393–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, J. B. 1992. Phylogeny of the non-aculeate Apocrita and the evolution of parasitism in the Hymenoptera. Journal of Hymenoptera Research, 1:3–14.Google Scholar
Whitfield, J. B. 1998. Phylogeny and evolution of host-parasitoid interactions in Hymenoptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 45:129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar