New species based on the biological species concept within the complex of Lariophagus distinguendus (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Pteromalidae), a parasitoid of household pests

Abstract

The pteromalid parasitoid Lariophagus distinguendus (Foerster) belongs to the Hymenoptera, a megadiverse insect order with high cryptic diversity. It attacks stored product pest beetles in human storage facilities. Recently, it has been shown to consist of two separate species. To further study its cryptic diversity, strains were collected to compare their relatedness using barcoding and nuclear genes. Nuclear genes identified two clusters which agree with the known two species, whereas the barcode fragment determined an additional third Clade. Total reproductive isolation (RI) according to the biological species concept (BSC) was investigated in crossing experiments within and between clusters using representative strains. Sexual isolation exists between all studied pairs, increasing from slight to strong with genetic distance. Postzygotic barriers mostly affected hybrid males, pointing to Haldane's rule. Hybrid females were only affected by unidirectional Spiroplasma‐induced cytoplasmic incompatibility and behavioural sterility, each in one specific strain combination. RI was virtually absent between strains separated by up to 2.8% COI difference, but strong or complete in three pairs from one Clade each, separated by at least 7.2%. Apparently, each of these clusters represents one separate species according to the BSC, highlighting cryptic diversity in direct vicinity to humans. In addition, these results challenge the recent ‘turbo‐taxonomy’ practice of using 2% COI differences to delimitate species, especially within parasitic Hymenoptera. The gradual increase in number and strength of reproductive barriers between strains with increasing genetic distance also sheds light on the emergence of barriers during the speciation process in L. distinguendus.

Review of German Spilomicrus Westwood (Hymenoptera, Diapriidae, Spilomicrini)

“…Although DNA barcoding is a great tool at hand, it has its own limitations. Various researchers (see Meier et al (2006) , Raupach et al (2016) , Ferrer-Suay et al (2018) and Pollmann et al (2023) ) have attempted to examine the accuracy of DNA barcodes for species identification and have found discrepancies in the results depending on the targeted taxon. Heteroplasmy, NUMTs, hybridisation, recent speciation, phylogeographic effects, introgression and/or incomplete lineage sorting, endosymbionts and their combinations can all have an effect on sorting of genetic material, as well as simply high variation in the (mostly used) mitochondrial genes.…”