Pamphilius montanus subsp. pulcher Shinohara 1988

• Main Authors: Shinohara, Akihiko, Kramp, Katja, Taeger, Andreas
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2022
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Arthropoda; Insecta; Hymenoptera; Pamphiliidae; Pamphilius; Pamphilius montanus; Pamphilius montanus pulcher shinohara; 1988; Yakutia
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6915820; http://treatment.plazi.org/id/FB3C87F1F220AC56FF67FB39FE21AA42

Pamphilius montanus pulcher Shinohara, 1988 (Figs 104, 105) (https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11405259) Pamphilius pulcher Shinohara, 1988a: 311; Shinohara, 1991b: 113; Zhelochovtsev & Zinovjev, 1995: 398. Pamphilius montanus pulcher : Shinohara, 2001: 106, 113, 115; Shinohara, 2002b: 430; Shinohara & Lelej, 2007: 932, 940; Taeger et al. , 2010: 89; Sundukov, 2017: 105; Lee et al. , 2019: 10; Shinohara, 2019: 11; Shinohara, 2020: 14, 244. Material examined. Sixty specimens, including the type series. Forty-three specimens are from South Korea (Shinohara 1988b; present work). New collection data: SOUTH KOREA: Gangwon-do : 1♂ (NSMT 30749), Mirugam (Bukdaesa), 1300m, Odaesan Mts., 26. V. 2008, A. Shinohara (NSMT); 1♂ (NSMT 30853), same locality, 2. VI. 2009, A. Shinohara (NSMT). See Shinohara (1988 a, 2001) for more collection data. Distribution . Russia (Yakutia), South Korea, Japan (Hokkaido) (Shinohara 2001). Host plant . Unknown. Remarks . This is a member of the P. sylvaticus group defined by Shinohara (1985 a, 2002b). Shinohara (1988a) described this subspecies as a full species but Shinohara (2001) treated it as a subspecies of P. montanus Shinohara, 1985. In our molecular analysis, the maximum intrasubspecific p -distance among specimens from Korea and Hokkaido, Japan, was 1.5% in COI (n=4) and 0.2% in NaK (n=3). The minimum distance to the specimens of the nominotypical P. montanus montanus from Honshu, Japan, was 3.7% in COI and 0.1% in NaK. The nearest neighbour was P. volatilis , diverging by a minimum of 4.1% in the COI analysis, and P. alnicola , diverging by a minimum of 0.6% in the NaK analysis. In the COI tree (Fig. 145), each of P. montanus , P. m. montanus and P. m. pulcher was retrieved as monophyletic with UFBoot support of 100% and P. montanus was sister to P. alnicola with UFBoot support of 82%. In the NaK tree (Fig. 159), P. m. montanus (n=2) was retrieved as monophyletic with UFBoot support of 100%, but P. m. pulcher (n=3) was not, while all the specimens of P. montanus (n=5) ...