Empria improba

• Main Authors: Liston, Andrew, Mutanen, Marko, Heidemaa, Mikk, Blank, Stephan M., Kiljunen, Niina, Taeger, Andreas, Viitasaari, Matti, Vikberg, Veli, Wutke, Saskia, Prous, Marko
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: Zenodo 2022
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Taxonomy; Animalia; Arthropoda; Insecta; Hymenoptera; Tenthredinidae; Empria; Empria improba; Fennoscandia; Kamchatka; Kamtschatka
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7019677; http://treatment.plazi.org/id/F5EBCE8408025632806CB53D79897721

Empria improba (Cresson, 1880) Fig. 22A-E Emphytus improbus Cresson, 1880: 11. ♀, ♂. Syntypes. Type locality: Nevada, USA. Lectotype ♂ (type No. 365) designated by Smith (1979). ANSP. Tenthredo (Poecilostoma) hybrida Erichson in: Ménétriés in: Middendorff, 1851: 60-61. ♀. Syntypes (assumed). Primary homonym of Tenthredo (Tenthredo) hybrida Eversmann, 1847. Type locality: Udskoj Ostrog [Russia, Khabarovsk Krai, Udskoe]. Lectotype ♀ designated by Prous et al. (2011). ZIN. syn. nov. Poecilosoma plana Jakowlew, 1891: 31. ♀. Type locality: Irkutsk, Russia. ♀. Holotype. ZIN. syn. nov. Empria itelmena Malaise, 1931b: 23. ♀, ♂. Syntypes. Type locality: Kamtschatka, E[lisowo] [Russia, Kamchatka Krai]. Lectotype ♀ designated by Prous et al. (2011). NHRS. syn. nov. Empria camtschatica Forsius, 1928: 46-47. ♀. Holotype. Type locality: Russia, Kamchatka Krai, Bolsheretsk [Bolscheretsk]. MZH. syn. nov. Notes. The species boundaries between willow-feeding taxa of the Empria immersa group ( E. immersa , E. camtschatica , E. plana , and E. improba ) have proved to be difficult to elucidate (Prous et al. 2014, 2020). In Fennoscandia, two forms can commonly be found at the same time and place (Prous et al. 2014): E. immersa with a dark pterostigma and short antenna, and E. camtschatica with a pale pterostigma and long antenna. These two forms can also be distinguished by larval morphology (Fig. 22). Based on ex ovo rearings by M. Prous (two females from Sweden and Estonia) and ex larva rearings by Ponomarev (2022) of E. immersa , and ex ovo rearings by M. Prous of E. camtschatica (using two females from Sweden), the main difference seems to be in head coloration: E. immersa with an occipital fleck or stripe (Fig. 22F-M) and E. camtschatica with occipital and parietal stripes (Fig. 22A-E). An additional difference may be that glandubae (white conical warts) are more prominent in E. immersa than in E. camtschatica . Although based on limited specimen sampling, genome scale data (Prous et al. 2020) support E. immersa as a distinct ...