Corresponding author: Veenakumari Kamalanathan (
Academic editor: Ralph Peters
In spite of their ubiquity and species richness, the taxonomy of the
The genus
As
Morphological terminology is after
The holotypes and paratypes of all the five new species are deposited in the ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, Bangalore, India.
We have used the following abbreviations in the description of the taxa. All the measurements taken are as per Miko ( – Head Length – Head width – Head height (Frontal cephalic index) = HW/HH (Lateral cephalic index) = HH/HL – Antennomeres 1–12 = Scape = pedicel – Length – Width – Height – Ocellar-ocular length – Posterior ocellar length – Interorbital space – Metasomal tergites 1 to 7
All the specimens were collected by using sweep nets yellow pan traps pitfall traps
T2 is either 1.7–2.0× longer than T3 or equal to T3
Both fore wing and hind wing with extremely long marginal cilia; hind wing curved inwards beyond submarginalis
Both wing shape and density of microtrichia on wings vary between males and females
Presence of propodeum as lateral lamellae anterior to horn
T7 and S6 very large and elongate
Densely setose vertex
Male antenna twelve segmented, constriction between A11 and A12 distinct
Mesosoma: Notauli well developed posteriorly, ranging in length from 0.27–0.32× length of mesoscutum; mesoscutum and mesoscutellum densely setose; mesoscutellum semicircular; metascutellum narrow in females and well defined in males; propodeum present as lateral triangular lamellae; lateral pronotal area rugose or with weak transverse ridges; mesopleuron with or without several transverse ridges beneath tegula; mesopleural depression distinct; metapleuron almost smooth; in females fore wing spatulate and with extremely long marginal cilia 1.7–2.2× width of wing; hind wing with a typical inward curve at the end of submarginal vein; hind wing marginal cilia 2.18–2.9× width of wing; in males the wings are narrow, densely covered with microtrichia, and hind wing less curved beyond the submarginal vein.
Metasoma: T1 with a short or long horn, horn with or without costae; T1 costate; T2 either subequal (as in
The members of ‘the
The males and females are sexually dimorphic, varying in the presence and absence of horn on T1, shape of wings and density of microtrichia on wings. The presence of a horn (of variable length between species) indicates the presence of a long ovipositor housed within it when not in use as is the case in
1 | Horn on T1 smooth (Figs |
2 |
- | Horn on T1 costate (Figs |
4 |
2 | Mesoscutum fully reticulate (Fig. |
|
- | Mesoscutum sculptured otherwise (Fig. |
3 |
3 | T2 equal to T3 (Fig. |
|
- | T2 1.7–2.0 longer than T3 (Fig. |
. |
4 | Propodeum medially produced as a rectangular costate plate (Figs |
|
– | Propodeum not produced medially (Fig. |
(Female). (ICAR/NBAIR/P371) INDIA: Sikkim, Gangtok, Hanuman Tok,
INDIA: Sikkim
Fore wing (Fig.
(Figs
Absence of horn on T1
Metascutellum broad and distinct when viewed dorsally
Male antenna twelve segmented, constriction between A11 and A12 distinct; length and width of antennomeres
Shape of wings different. Fore wing (
The species is named ‘
(Female). (ICAR/NBAIR/P381) INDIA: Karnataka: Bengaluru, Attur,
INDIA: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
Fore wing (Fig.
(Figs
The species is named ‘
(Female) (ICAR/NBAIR/P376) INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Pasighat, College of Horticulture and Forestry,
INDIA: Arunachal Pradesh, Pasighat.
Fore wing (Figs
Unknown
The species is named ‘
(Female). (ICAR/NBAIR/P391) INDIA: Karnataka: Bengaluru, Hebbal,
INDIA, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu
Fore wing (Fig.
Not known.
The species is named ‘
The distinguishing characters for this species are mentioned under other species of
(Female). (ICAR/NBAIR/P856) INDIA: Sikkim, Gangtok, Hanuman Tok,
INDIA: Sikkim.
Forewing (Fig.
Not known.
The species is named ‘
This species can be easily distinguished from the other four species described here by reticulate sculpture on mesoscutum and mesoscutellum.
The first and second authors are grateful to the Director ICAR-NBAIR, Bengaluru for providing facilities and encouragement. We thank Lubomir Masner for discussions and for confirming the taxonomic identity; we also thank N.F. Johnson and A.D. Austin for their critical review of the paper – all of which helped considerably improve the paper. We thank Christoph Germann for Latinizing the names. We are indebted to the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin for the waiver of page charges. We also thank B.L. Lakshmi, V. Shashikala and B. Nagaraja for their support both in the field and the laboratory. Thanks are also due to the