A species-level taxonomic review and host associations of Glyptapanteles (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) with an emphasis on 136 new reared species from Costa Rica and Ecuador

Aging like fine wine: Mischievous microbes and other factors influencing senescence

In this issue, a special section is dedicated to the factors affecting senescence. It examines the interplay between immunosenescence and chronic kidney disease, probes into Peto's paradox, and explores how epigenetic switches can potentially mitigate senescence and inflammation. Additionally, insights are offered on understanding a specific Ras mechanism in yeast for potential therapeutic interventions against cancer and for longevity. Furthermore, the remarkable endurance of last year's Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine is also highlighted. Moreover, the discovery of potential biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma, the link between osteoarthritis and the circadian clock, and the multifaceted role of DNAJA3 in B cell lifecycle are discussed. Further, study findings shed light on the influence of extracellular matrix molecules on cleft palate formation, the renal protective effects of combination therapy in diabetic kidney disease, and novel approaches to detect developmental dysplasia of the hip. Finally, a correspondence delves into the role of autonomic regulation in cognitive decline.

Microplitis manilae Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Biology, Systematics, and Response to Climate Change through Ecological Niche Modelling

The parasitoid wasp Microplitis manilae Ashmead (Braconidae: Microgastrinae) is an important natural enemy of caterpillars and of a range of noctuids, including pest species of armyworms (Spodoptera spp.). Here, the wasp is redescribed and, for the first time, illustrated based on the holotype. An updated list of all the Microplitis species attacking the noctuid Spodoptera spp. along with a discussion on host-parasitoid-food plant associations is offered. Based on information about the actual distribution of M. manilae and a set of bioclimatic variables, the maximum entropy (MaxEnt) niche model and the quantum geographic information system (QGIS) were explored to predict the potential distribution of this wasp in a global context. The worldwide geographical distribution of potential climatic suitability of M. manilae at present and in three different periods in the future was simulated. The relative percent contribution score of environmental factors and the Jackknife test were combined to identify dominant bioclimatic variables and their appropriate values influencing the potential distribution of M. manilae. The results showed that under current climate conditions, the prediction of the maximum entropy model highly matches the actual distribution, and that the obtained value of simulation accuracy was very high. Likewise, the distribution of M. manilae was mainly affected by five bioclimatic variables, listed in order of importance as follows: precipitation during the wettest month (BIO13), annual precipitation (BIO12), annual mean temperature (BIO1), temperature seasonality (BIO4), and mean temperature during the warmest quarter (BIO10). In a global context, the suitable habitat of M. manilae would be mainly in tropical and subtropical countries. Furthermore, under the four greenhouse gas concentration scenarios (representative concentration pathways: RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5) in the future period of the 2070s, the areas with high, medium, and low suitability showed varying degrees of change from current conditions and are expected to expand in the future. This work provides theoretical backing for studies associated with the safeguarding of the environment and pest management.

Taxonomic identification accuracy from BOLD and GenBank databases using over a thousand insect DNA barcodes from Colombia

Recent declines of insect populations at high rates have resulted in the need to develop a quick method to determine their diversity and to process massive data for the identification of species of highly diverse groups. A short sequence of DNA from COI is widely used for insect identification by comparing it against sequences of known species. Repositories of sequences are available online with tools that facilitate matching of the sequences of interest to a known individual. However, the performance of these tools can differ. Here we aim to assess the accuracy in identification of insect taxonomic categories from two repositories, BOLD Systems and GenBank. This was done by comparing the sequence matches between the taxonomist identification and the suggested identification from the platforms. We used 1,160 COI sequences representing eight orders of insects from Colombia. After the comparison, we reanalyzed the results from a representative subset of the data from the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera). Overall, BOLD systems outperformed GenBank, and the performance of both engines differed by orders and other taxonomic categories (species, genus and family). Higher rates of accurate identification were obtained at family and genus levels. The accuracy was higher in BOLD for the order Coleoptera at family level, for Coleoptera and Lepidoptera at genus and species level. Other orders performed similarly in both repositories. Moreover, the Scarabaeinae subset showed that species were correctly identified only when BOLD match percentage was above 93.4% and a total of 85% of the samples were correctly assigned to a taxonomic category. These results accentuate the great potential of the identification engines to place insects accurately into their respective taxonomic categories based on DNA barcodes and highlight the reliability of BOLD Systems for insect identification in the absence of a large reference database for a highly diverse country.

More discussion of minimalist species descriptions and clarifying some misconceptions contained in Meier et al. 2021

This is a response to a preprint version of "A re-analysis of the data in Sharkey et al.'s (2021) minimalist revision reveals that BINs do not deserve names, but BOLD Systems needs a stronger commitment to open science", https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.28.441626v2. Meier et al. strongly criticized Sharkey et al.'s publication in which 403 new species were deliberately minimally described, based primarily on COI barcode sequence data. Here we respond to these criticisms. The following points are made: 1) Sharkey et al. did not equate BINs with species, as demonstrated in several examples in which multiple species were found to be in single BINs. 2) We reiterate that BINs were used as a preliminary sorting tool, just as preliminary morphological identification commonly sorts specimens based on color and size into unit trays; despite BINs and species concepts matching well over 90% of species, this matching does not equate to equality. 3) Consensus barcodes were used only to provide a diagnosis to conform to the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature just as consensus morphological diagnoses are. The barcode of a holotype is definitive and simply part of its cellular morphology. 4) Minimalist revisions will facilitate and accelerate future taxonomic research, not hinder it. 5) We refute the claim that the BOLD sequences of Plesiocoelusvanachterbergi are pseudogenes and demonstrate that they simply represent a frameshift mutation. 6) We reassert our observation that morphological evidence alone is insufficient to recognize species within species-rich higher taxa and that its usefulness lies in character states that are congruent with molecular data. 7) We show that in the cases in which COI barcodes code for the same amino acids in different putative species, data from morphology, host specificity, and other ecological traits reaffirm their utility as indicators of genetically distinct lineages.

Turbo taxonomy approaches: lessons from the past and recommendations for the future based on the experience with Braconidae (Hymenoptera) parasitoid wasps

Not aplicable to a Forum paper, but if needed I can write one.

To us insectometers, it is clear that insect decline in our Costa Rican tropics is real, so let's be kind to the survivors

We have been field observers of tropical insects on four continents and, since 1978, intense observers of caterpillars, their parasites, and their associates in the 1,260 km² of dry, cloud, and rain forests of Área de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG) in northwestern Costa Rica. ACG's natural ecosystem restoration began with its national park designation in 1971. As human biomonitors, or "insectometers," we see that ACG's insect species richness and density have gradually declined since the late 1970s, and more intensely since about 2005. The overarching perturbation is climate change. It has caused increasing ambient temperatures for all ecosystems; more erratic seasonal cues; reduced, erratic, and asynchronous rainfall; heated air masses sliding up the volcanoes and burning off the cloud forest; and dwindling biodiversity in all ACG terrestrial ecosystems. What then is the next step as climate change descends on ACG's many small-scale successes in sustainable biodevelopment? Be kind to the survivors by stimulating and facilitating their owner societies to value them as legitimate members of a green sustainable nation. Encourage national bioliteracy, BioAlfa.

Resolving Food-Web Structure

Food webs are a major focus and organizing theme of ecology, but the data used to assemble them are deficient. Early debates over food-web data focused on taxonomic resolution and completeness, lack of which had produced spurious inferences. Recent data are widely believed to be much better and are used extensively in theoretical and meta-analytic research on network ecology. Confidence in these data rests on the assumptions ( a) that empiricists correctly identified consumers and their foods and ( b) that sampling methods were adequate to detect a near-comprehensive fraction of the trophic interactions between species. Abundant evidence indicates that these assumptions are often invalid, suggesting that most topological food-web data may remain unreliable for inferences about network structure and underlying ecological and evolutionary processes. Morphologically cryptic species are ubiquitous across taxa and regions, and many trophic interactions routinely evade detection by conventional methods. Molecular methods have diagnosed the severity of these problems and are a necessary part of the cure.

Using DNA-barcoded Malaise trap samples to measure impact of a geothermal energy project on the biodiversity of a Costa Rican old-growth rain forest

We report one year (2013-2014) of biomonitoring an insect community in a tropical old-growth rain forest, during construction of an industrial-level geothermal electricity project. This is the first-year reaction by the species-rich insect biodiversity; six subsequent years are being analyzed now. The site is on the margin of a UNESCO Natural World Heritage Site, Área de Conservación Guanacaste (ACG), in northwestern Costa Rica. This biomonitoring is part of Costa Rica's ongoing efforts to sustainably retain its wild biodiversity through biodevelopmental integration with its societies. Essential tools are geothermal engineering needs, entomological knowledge, insect species-rich forest, government-NGO integration, common sense, DNA barcoding for species-level identification, and Malaise traps. This research is tailored for integration with its society at the product level. We combine an academic view with on-site engineering decisions. This biomonitoring requires alpha-level DNA barcoding combined with centuries of morphology-based entomological taxonomy and ecology. Not all desired insect community analyses are performed; they are for data from subsequent years combined with this year. We provide enough analysis to be used by both guilds now. This biomonitoring has shown, for the first year, that the geothermal project impacts only the biodiversity within a zone less than 50 m from the project margin.

Annotated and illustrated world checklist of Microgastrinae parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera, Braconidae)

A checklist of world species of Microgastrinae parasitoid wasps (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) is provided. A total of 81 genera and 2,999 extant species are recognized as valid, including 36 nominal species that are currently considered as species inquirendae. Two genera are synonymized under Apanteles. Nine lectotypes are designated. A total of 318 new combinations, three new replacement names, three species name amendments, and seven species status revised are proposed. Additionally, three species names are treated as nomina dubia, and 52 species names are considered as unavailable names (including 14 as nomina nuda). A total of three extinct genera and 12 extinct species are also listed. Unlike in many previous treatments of the subfamily, tribal concepts are judged to be inadequate, so genera are listed alphabetically. Brief diagnoses of all Microgastrinae genera, as understood in this paper, are presented. Illustrations of all extant genera (at least one species per genus, usually more) are included to showcase morphological diversity. Primary types of Microgastrinae are deposited in 108 institutions worldwide, although 76% are concentrated in 17 collections. Localities of primary types, in 138 countries, are reported. Recorded species distributions are listed by biogeographical region and by country. Microgastrine wasps are recorded from all continents except Antarctica; specimens can be found in all major terrestrial ecosystems, from 82°N to 55°S, and from sea level up to at least 4,500 m a.s.l. The Oriental (46) and Neotropical (43) regions have the largest number of genera recorded, whereas the Palaearctic region (28) is the least diverse. Currently, the highest species richness is in the Palearctic region (827), due to more historical study there, followed by the Neotropical (768) and Oriental (752) regions, which are expected to be the most species rich. Based on ratios of Lepidoptera and Microgastrinae species from several areas, the actual world diversity of Microgastrinae is expected to be between 30,000–50,000 species; although these ratios were mostly based on data from temperate areas and thus must be treated with caution, the single tropical area included had a similar ratio to the temperate ones. Almost 45,000 specimens of Microgastrinae from 67 different genera (83% of microgastrine genera) have complete or partial DNA barcode sequences deposited in the Barcode of Life Data System; the DNA barcodes represent 3,545 putative species or Barcode Index Numbers (BINs), as estimated from the molecular data. Information on the number of sequences and BINs per genus are detailed in the checklist. Microgastrinae hosts are here considered to be restricted to Eulepidoptera, i.e., most of the Lepidoptera except for the four most basal superfamilies (Micropterigoidea, Eriocranioidea, Hepialoidea and Nepticuloidea), with all previous literature records of other insect orders and those primitive Lepidoptera lineages being considered incorrect. The following nomenclatural acts are proposed: 1) Two genera are synonymyzed under Apanteles: Cecidobracon Kieffer & Jörgensen, 1910, new synonym and Holcapanteles Cameron, 1905, new synonym; 2) Nine lectotype designations are made for Alphomelondisputabile (Ashmead, 1900), Alphomelonnigriceps (Ashmead, 1900), Cotesiasalebrosa (Marshall, 1885), Diolcogasterxanthaspis (Ashmead, 1900), Dolichogenideaononidis (Marshall, 1889), Glyptapantelesacraeae (Wilkinson, 1932), Glyptapantelesguyanensis (Cameron, 1911), Glyptapantelesmilitaris (Walsh, 1861), and Pseudapantelesannulicornis Ashmead, 1900; 3) Three new replacement names are a) Diolcogasteraurangabadensis Fernandez-Triana, replacing Diolcogasterindicus (Rao & Chalikwar, 1970) [nec Diolcogasterindicus (Wilkinson, 1927)], b) Dolichogenideaincystatae Fernandez-Triana, replacing Dolichogenidealobesia Liu & Chen, 2019 [nec Dolichogenidealobesia Fagan-Jeffries & Austin, 2019], and c) Microplitisvitobiasi Fernandez-Triana, replacing Microplitisvariicolor Tobias, 1964 [nec Microplitisvaricolor Viereck, 1917]; 4) Three names amended are Apantelesirenecarrilloae Fernandez-Triana, 2014, Cotesiaayerzai (Brèthes, 1920), and Cotesiariverai (Porter, 1916); 5) Seven species have their status revised: Cotesiaarctica (Thomson, 1895), Cotesiaokamotoi (Watanabe, 1921), Cotesiaukrainica (Tobias, 1986), Dolichogenideaappellator (Telenga, 1949), Dolichogenideamurinanae (Capek & Zwölfer, 1957), Hypomicrogasteracarnas Nixon, 1965, and Nyererianigricoxis (Wilkinson, 1932); 6) New combinations are given for 318 species: Alloplitiscongensis, Alloplitisdetractus, Apantelesasphondyliae, Apantelesbraziliensis, Apantelessulciscutis, Choerasaper, Choerasapollion, Choerasdaphne, Choerasfomes, Choerasgerontius, Choerashelle, Choerasirates, Choeraslibanius, Choeraslongiterebrus, Choerasloretta, Choerasrecusans, Choerassordidus, Choerasstenoterga, Choerassuperbus, Choerassylleptae, Choerasvacillatrix, Choerasvacillatropsis, Choerasvenilia, Cotesiaasavari, Cotesiabactriana, Cotesiabambeytripla, Cotesiaberberidis, Cotesiabhairavi, Cotesiabiezankoi, Cotesiabifida, Cotesiacaligophagus, Cotesiacheesmanae, Cotesiacompressithorax, Cotesiadelphinensis, Cotesiaeffrena, Cotesiaeuphobetri, Cotesiaelaeodes, Cotesiaendii, Cotesiaeuthaliae, Cotesiaexelastisae, Cotesiahiberniae, Cotesiahyperion, Cotesiahypopygialis, Cotesiahypsipylae, Cotesiajujubae, Cotesialesbiae, Cotesialevigaster, Cotesializeri, Cotesiamalevola, Cotesiamalshri, Cotesiamenezesi, Cotesiamuzaffarensis, Cotesianeptisis, Cotesianycteus, Cotesiaoeceticola, Cotesiaoppidicola, Cotesiaopsiphanis, Cotesiapachkuriae, Cotesiapaludicolae, Cotesiaparbhanii, Cotesiaparvicornis, Cotesiapratapae, Cotesiaprozorovi, Cotesiapterophoriphagus, Cotesiaradiarytensis, Cotesiarangii, Cotesiariverai, Cotesiaruficoxis, Cotesiasenegalensis, Cotesiaseyali, Cotesiasphenarchi, Cotesiasphingivora, Cotesiatransuta, Cotesiaturkestanica, Diolcogasterabengouroui, Diolcogasteragama, Diolcogasterambositrensis, Diolcogasteranandra, Diolcogasterannulata, Diolcogasterbambeyi, Diolcogasterbicolorina, Diolcogastercariniger, Diolcogastercincticornis, Diolcogastercingulata, Diolcogastercoronata, Diolcogastercoxalis, Diolcogasterdipika, Diolcogasterearina, Diolcogasterepectina, Diolcogasterepectinopsis, Diolcogastergrangeri, Diolcogasterheterocera, Diolcogasterhomocera, Diolcogasterindica, Diolcogasterinsularis, Diolcogasterkivuana, Diolcogastermediosulcata, Diolcogastermegaulax, Diolcogasterneglecta, Diolcogasternigromacula, Diolcogasterpalpicolor, Diolcogasterpersimilis, Diolcogasterplecopterae, Diolcogasterplutocongoensis, Diolcogasterpsilocnema, Diolcogasterrufithorax, Diolcogastersemirufa, Diolcogasterseyrigi, Diolcogastersubtorquata, Diolcogastersulcata, Diolcogastertorquatiger, Diolcogastertristiculus, Diolcogasterturneri, Diolcogastervulcana, Diolcogasterwittei, Distatrixanthedon, Distatrixcerales, Distatrixcuspidalis, Distatrixeuproctidis, Distatrixflava, Distatrixgeometrivora, Distatrixmaia, Distatrixtookei, Distatrixtermina, Distatrixsimulissima, Dolichogenideaagamedes, Dolichogenideaaluella, Dolichogenideaargiope, Dolichogenideaatreus, Dolichogenideabakeri, Dolichogenideabasiflava, Dolichogenideabersa, Dolichogenideabiplagae, Dolichogenideabisulcata, Dolichogenideacatonix, Dolichogenideachrysis, Dolichogenideacoffea, Dolichogenideacoretas, Dolichogenideacyane, Dolichogenideadiaphantus, Dolichogenideadiparopsidis, Dolichogenideadryas, Dolichogenideaearterus, Dolichogenideaensiger, Dolichogenideaeros, Dolichogenideaevadne, Dolichogenideafalcator, Dolichogenideagelechiidivoris, Dolichogenideagobica, Dolichogenideahyalinis, Dolichogenideairiarte, Dolichogenidealakhaensis, Dolichogenidealampe, Dolichogenidealaspeyresiella, Dolichogenidealatistigma, Dolichogenidealebene, Dolichogenidealucidinervis, Dolichogenideamalacosomae, Dolichogenideamaro, Dolichogenideamendosae, Dolichogenideamonticola, Dolichogenideanigra, Dolichogenideaolivierellae, Dolichogenideaparallelis, Dolichogenideapelopea, Dolichogenideapelops, Dolichogenideaphaenna, Dolichogenideapisenor, Dolichogenidearoepkei, Dolichogenideascabra, Dolichogenideastatius, Dolichogenideastenotelas, Dolichogenideastriata, Dolichogenideawittei, Exoryzaasotae, Exoryzabelippicola, Exoryzahylas, Exoryzamegagaster, Exoryzaoryzae, Glyptapantelesaggestus, Glyptapantelesagynus, Glyptapantelesaithos, Glyptapantelesamenophis, Glyptapantelesantarctiae, Glyptapantelesanubis, Glyptapantelesarginae, Glyptapantelesargus, Glyptapantelesatylana, Glyptapantelesbadgleyi, Glyptapantelesbataviensis, Glyptapantelesbistonis, Glyptapantelesborocerae, Glyptapantelescacao, Glyptapantelescadei, Glyptapantelescinyras, Glyptapanteleseryphanidis, Glyptapanteleseuproctisiphagus, Glyptapanteleseutelus, Glyptapantelesfabiae, Glyptapantelesfulvigaster, Glyptapantelesfuscinervis, Glyptapantelesgahinga, Glyptapantelesglobatus, Glyptapantelesglyphodes, Glyptapantelesguierae, Glyptapanteleshorus, Glyptapantelesintricatus, Glyptapanteleslamprosemae, Glyptapanteleslefevrei, Glyptapantelesleucotretae, Glyptapanteleslissopleurus, Glyptapantelesmadecassus, Glyptapantelesmarquesi, Glyptapantelesmelanotus, Glyptapantelesmelissus, Glyptapantelesmerope, Glyptapantelesnaromae, Glyptapantelesnepitae, Glyptapantelesnigrescens, Glyptapantelesninus, Glyptapantelesnkuli, Glyptapantelesparasundanus, Glyptapantelespenelope, Glyptapantelespenthocratus, Glyptapantelesphilippinensis, Glyptapantelesphilocampus, Glyptapantelesphoebe, Glyptapantelesphytometraduplus, Glyptapantelespropylae, Glyptapantelespuera, Glyptapantelesseydeli, Glyptapantelessiderion, Glyptapantelessimus, Glyptapantelesspeciosissimus, Glyptapantelesspilosomae, Glyptapantelessubpunctatus, Glyptapantelesthespis, Glyptapantelesthoseae, Glyptapantelesvenustus, Glyptapanteleswilkinsoni, Hypomicrogastersamarshalli, Iconellacajani, Iconelladetrectans, Iconellajason, Iconellalynceus, Iconellapyrene, Iconellatedanius, Illidopsazamgarhensis, Illidopslamprosemae, Illidopstrabea, Keylimepiestriatus, Microplitisadisurae, Microplitismexicanus, Neoclarkinellaariadne, Neoclarkinellacurvinervus, Neoclarkinellasundana, Nyereriaituriensis, Nyererianioro, Nyereriaproagynus, Nyereriataoi, Nyereriavallatae, Parapantelesaethiopicus, Parapantelesalternatus, Parapantelesaso, Parapantelesatellae, Parapantelesbagicha, Parapantelescleo, Parapantelescyclorhaphus, Parapantelesdemades, Parapantelesendymion, Parapantelesepiplemicidus, Parapantelesexpulsus, Parapantelesfallax, Parapantelesfolia, Parapantelesfurax, Parapanteleshemitheae, Parapanteleshyposidrae, Parapantelesindicus, Parapantelesjavensis, Parapantelesjhaverii, Parapantelesmaculipalpis, Parapantelesmaynei, Parapantelesneocajani, Parapantelesneohyblaeae, Parapantelesnydia, Parapantelesprosper, Parapantelesprosymna, Parapantelespunctatissimus, Parapantelesregalis, Parapantelessarpedon, Parapantelessartamus, Parapantelesscultena, Parapantelestransvaalensis, Parapantelesturri, Parapantelesxanthopholis, Pholetesoracutus, Pholetesorbrevivalvatus, Pholetesorextentus, Pholetesoringenuoides, Pholetesorkuwayamai, Promicrogasterapidanus, Promicrogasterbriareus, Promicrogasterconopiae, Promicrogasteremesa, Promicrogastergrandicula, Promicrogasterorsedice, Promicrogasterrepleta, Promicrogastertyphon, Sathonbekilyensis, Sathonflavofacialis, Sathonlaurae, Sathonmikeno, Sathonruandanus, Sathonrufotestaceus, Venanidesastydamia, Venanidesdemeter, Venanidesparmula, and Venanidessymmysta.

A new species of Glyptapanteles Ashmead (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Microgastrinae) within Macrobrochis gigas (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Lithosiidae) in Fujian, China

The south-east coastal area of Fujian, China, belongs to the Oriental Realm, and is characterized by a high insect species richness. In this work, a new species of Hymenopteran parasitoid, Glyptapantelesgigas Liang & Song, sp. nov. found in Jinjiang within hosts of caterpillars Macrobrochisgigas (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae), is described and illustrated, with differences from similar species. Additionally, we presumed that both parasitoid and host species play very important role in the coevolution and tritrophic interaction between plants, phytophagous insects, and their parasitoids, because these insects probably broke the sporangia and made contributions to their colonization, or some spores were spread for long distances by adult moths after their emergence, or some parasitoids were attracted by the eggs and larvae of these caterpillars, which was also thought to be helpful to spread of spores.