Chalcidoidea Morphology Matrix

Character

Postoral bridge [49]

Description

The classic postgenal bridge is a mesal extension and fusion of the postgenae over a hypostomal bridge. Therefore, the two structures are separate and there are no hypostomal structures in the bridge. Cases where the postgenae meet but do not fuse medially (i.e. Acmopolynema, Mymaridae) are not counted as a postgenal bridge. In some Toryminae, however, the hypostomal and postgenal bridges can become fused (State 2). In that case, the derivation of the bridge can be difficult to discern, especially when either bridge is very short compared to the other, as in Dirhinus. In Megastigmus transvaalensis and and Neomegastigmus (Torymidae), there is a potential postgenal bridge where apparent hypostomal sulci are superficially indicated along the bridge, but where the hypostomal carinae converge and meet medially (State 3). This also differs from other states in that the postgenal bridge is not elevated above the hypostomal bridge. States similar to this are known from outgroups, but have rarely been seen in Chalcidoidea. In some small-bodied taxa, such as Aphelinidae and Trichogrammatidae, it may not be clear what kind of cranial bridge is present due to a lack of landmarks (scored as state 4). In cases where a definite suture is present medially, but all other landmarks are absent, we scored for state 5. Note that "suture" does not refer to the postoral microtrichia, which forms a set of ridges or cuticular folds. Citations: Rasplus et al. (1998: 2); Wijesekara (1997: 10).

States

-: unassigned

notes:

coded examples: Trechnites fuscitarsis, Entedon sylvestris Szelenyi, 1981, Eulophus_sp, Micradelus rotundus, Tetracampe_Taiwan (toggle remainder)

0: absent

1.Eunotus

2.Nasonia vitripennis

notes:

coded examples: Cales noacki Howard, 1907, Coccophagus rusti, Cirrospilus coachellae, Coccobius fulvus, Nasonia vitripennis (toggle remainder)

1: present and distinct from hypostomal bridge

1.Cleonymus

notes:

coded examples: Cleonymus Latreille, 1809, Acanthochalcis_nigricans, Yrka Boucek, 1988, Podagrion brasiliensis Howard, 1894, Cratocentrus decoratus (Klug, 1834) (toggle remainder)

2: present and fused with hypostomal bridge, but slightly elevated above it

1. Glyphomerus stigma... ↴

2.Eurytoma

3. Chromeurytoma... ↴

4.Dirhinus giffardii

notes:

coded examples: Eurytoma gigantea, Chromeurytoma sp., Archaeoteleia mellea, Pseudochalcura gibbosa (Provancher, 1881), Colotrechnus ignotus Burks, 1958 (toggle remainder)

3: uncertain, ventral part of cranial bridge not elevated above dorsal part, accompanied by hypostomal sulci

1. Megastigmus tr... ↴

notes:

coded examples: Megastigmus transvaalensis, Clytina_giraudi_Den, Neomegastigmus_sp, Chartocerus_sp1, Concensus OTU for matrix #{self.name}

4: uncertain, all landmarks except pits absent

1. Coccophagus... ↴

notes: Aphelinidae, Trichogrammatidae

coded examples: Notaspidium giganteum Halstead, 1991, Ceratogramma etiennei Delavare, 1988, Haeckeliania_sperata, Minotetrastichus frontalis (Nees, 1834), Epiclerus temenus (Walker, 1839) (toggle remainder)

5: uncertain, all landmarks absent, postgenae separated by a suture

1. Acmopolynema varium... ↴

notes:

coded examples: Gonatocerus ashmeadi, Australomymar sp. Chile, Acmopolynema varium, Anaphes_D2564, Ceratanaphes_D1041 (toggle remainder)

6: uncertain, no landmarks visible

notes:

coded examples: Erythmelus_rosascostai, Anagrus_epos, Oligosita_sanguinea_species_group, Metaphycus luteolus, Perthiola mazaneci Boucek, 1988 (toggle remainder)