Phanacis Forster 1869

Phanacis Förster, 1869 Figs. 1–3, 28–30, 31–34 Phanacis Förster, 1869: 145. Type species: Phanacis centaureae Förster, 1869 by original designation. Gillettea Ashmead, 1897: 69. Type species: Gillettea taraxaci Ashmead, 1897 by original designation. Synonymized by Eady & Quinlan (1963: 18). Timaspis Mayr, 1881: 18. Type species: Diastrophus lampsanae Karsch, 1878 as designated by Ashmead (1903). Synonymized by Eady & Quinlan (1963) prior to being reinstated by Nieves-Aldrey (1994a) but later synonymized again by Melika (2006). Aylacopsis Hedicke, 1923: 81. Type species: Aylacopsis heraclei Hedicke, 1923 by original designation. Synonymized by Nieves-Aldrey (1994a). Parapanteliella Diakontschuk, 1981: 1726. Type species: Parapanteliella eugeniae Diakontschuk, 1981 by original designation. Synonymized by Melika (2006). Diagnosis. Phanacis as presently circumscribed is diagnosed by the following combination of characters: antenna shorter than body (e.g., Fig. 28); fore wing areolet present, rarely nearly eliminated (Fig. 15); fore wing with conspicuous marginal setae; mesoscutum with alutaceous to reticulate sculpture; female antenna with 13 or 14 antennomeres. Diversity. 35 species, of which Phanacis hypochoeridis (Kieffer), P. taraxaci (Ashmead), and others have become widely introduced outside their native ranges (van Noort et al. 2015, Nastasi et al. 2024a, in press). A complete checklist of species including host plants and geographic distribution was recently given by Nastasi et al. (in press). Biology. Galls induced by Phanacis are most frequently formed in the stem tissue (Figs. 31–34), but some species instead induce galls in the flowers, roots, or leaves (Melika 2006, Şchiopu et al. 2024). Host plant genera known for Phanacis are Carthamus L., Centaurea L., Cichorium L., Cirsium Mill., Cousinia Cass., Crepis L., Helminthotheca Vaill., Hypochaeris L., Lactuca L., Lapsana L., Osteospermum L., Picris L., Serratula L., Silybum Adans., Sonchus L., Taraxacum F.H.Wigg., Urospermum Scop. (Asteraceae); Phlomis L. (Lamiaceae) (Melika 2006, Nastasi et al. in press). Use of the genera Eryngium Tourn. and Heracleum L. (Apiaceae) have also been reported, but these are almost certainly misidentifications of morphologically similar Asteraceae (Nastasi et al. in press). Remarks. Phanacis presently comprises a nonmonophyletic assemblage of species distributed throughout the Old World with the exception of numerous species that have been introduced across the globe (Ronquist et al. 2015, Buffington et al. 2020, Nastasi et al. in press). Ronquist et al. (2015) found that Asiocynips rendered Phanacis (including Timaspis) paraphyletic despite only including 7 species of Phanacidini in their analysis. Previous authors have frequently recognized Timaspis Mayr, 1881 for a group of species presently placed in Phanacis (e.g., Nieves-Aldrey 1994a), but circumscriptions of either genus have still resulted in unfavorable generic concepts (Melika 2006, Şchiopu et al. 2024). A comprehensive revision of Phanacis incorporating phylogenetic analysis will be necessary to approach the assessment of generic limits, especially as the majority of species are known only from the Eastern Palearctic and are not well-characterized in the literature. Given the high degree of morphological diversity in Phanacis, it is likely that some genera presently synonymized with Phanacis will warrant recognition as valid genera in further studies. Timaspis in particular presents highly distinct morphology (Nieves-Aldrey, pers. comm.) and should be prioritized in further validity assessments for Phanacidini taxa.