Bracon (Lucobracon) fortipes Wesmael, 1838

Figs 10 A-J, 11A-I

Braco fortipes Wesmael, 1838: 18 ♀ (type material: one ♀), type locality: “environs de Liège” (Belgium), ♀ holotype (“La seule femelle...” Wesmael l.c., present designation) in the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels; examined.

Bracon crocatus Schmiedeknecht, 1897: 540 ♀♁ (type material: at least one ♀ + one ♁), type locality: “Provinz Oran in Algerien ”, ♀ lectotype in Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin.); examined.

Further synonyms of B. fortipes (see also Papp 2004: 173, 2005: 203): curiosus Szépligeti, 1901, indubius var. 2. Szépligeti, 1901, lautus Szépligeti, 1901 and semirugosus Szépligeti, 1901.

Bracon fortipes – Szépligeti 1901: 184 (in key, in Hungarian); 1904 (1901): 163 (in key, in German).

Bracon (Bracon) fortipes – Telenga 1936: 164 (♀), 169 (♁) (in key), 257 (redescription) (in Russian) and 367 (♀), 371 (♁) (in key, in German), assigned to “Section Striobracon ” (= Bracon s. str.).

Bracon (Lucobracon) fortipes – Fahringer 1927: as valid species 251 (♀), 257 (♁) (in key) and 352 (redescription), assigned to “Section Lucobracon ”. — Papp 1969: 319 (in key) and 324 (taxonomic remark). — Shenefelt 1978: 1618 (literature up to 1971). — Tobias & Belokobylskij 2000: 164 (as synonym with question-mark of B. erraticus).

Bracon crocatus – Szépligeti 1901: 264 (in key, in Hungarian); 1904 (1901): 176 (in key, in German) ♀ ♁. — Fahringer 1927: as valid species 259 (♀), 274 (♁) (in key) and 377 (redescription), assigned to “Section Orthobracon)”. — Telenga 1936: as valid species 173 (♀), 177 (♁) (in key), 282 (redescription) (in Russian) and 375 (♀), 379 (♁) (in key in German). — Shenefelt 1978: 1477 (as valid species, literature up to 1968). — Papp 1999: 297 (synonymization).

Designation of the ♀ holotype of Bracon fortipes

(First label, handwritten) “II/1.”, (second label, printed) “Coll. Wesmael”, (third label, printed) “2028”, (fourth label) “ Braco fortipes mihi ♀ ” (handwritten) “dét. C. Wesmael” (printed), (fifth label, printed red) “Type”, (sixth label with my handwriting) “ Belgique / Liège / leg. M. Robert” (above on label, locality after Wesmael l.c.), “teste J. Papp 1987” (reverse on label), seventh label is the holotype card. The ♀ holotype is in poor condition: (1) head together with antenna missing, (2) hind pair of tarsi damaged: hind right leg with tarsomeres 1-2 and hind left leg with only basitarsus.

Material examined

(32 ♀♀ + 47 ♁♁ from 19 countries): PORTUGAL: 1 ♀. SPAIN: 1 ♁. FRANCE: 1 ♀. ITALY: 1 ♀ + 2 ♁♁ from three localities. GERMANY: 1 ♀. SWEDEN: 1 ♁. AUSTRIA: 1 ♁. HUNGARY: 13 ♀♀ + 23 ♁♁ from thirty-one localities. SERBIA: 1 ♁. CROATIA: 4 ♀♀ + 4 ♁♁ from seven localities. BULGARIA: 3 ♀♀ + 1 ♁ from four localities. GREECE: 4 ♀♀ + 5 ♁♁ from seven localities. TUNISIA: 1 ♀. TURKEY: 3 ♀♀ + 1 ♁ from four localities. CYPRUS: 1 ♁. IRAN: 3 ♁♁ from two localities. KAZAKHSTAN: 1 ♁. MONGOLIA: 1 ♁. KOREA: 1 ♁.

Redescription of the ♀ holotype of B. fortipes (Fig. 10 A-H)

HEAD. Missing.

LENGTH. Length of body, or meso- and metasoma combined: 3.5mm.

MESOSOMA. In lateral view 1.6 times as long as high, polished. Notaulix anteriorly faintly distinct. Propodeum above lunule with oblique rugae, otherwise polished (Fig. 10C).

LEGS. Hind femur thick, 2.5 times as long as broad medially (Fig. 10D). Middle claw moderately downcurved, its basal lobe middle sized and pointed (Fig. 10E).

WINGS. Forewing about as long as meso- and metasoma combined. Pterostigma (Fig. 10F) three times as long as wide, issuing r from its middle, r somewhat shorter (i.e. 0.7 times) than width of pterostigma; submarginal cell short and wide, 3-SR 1.4 times as long as 2-SR, SR1 just not straight, 1.5 times as long as 3-SR and reaching tip of wing (Fig. 10F). First discal cell less high and fairly long, 1-M 1.6 times length of m-cu, 1-SR-M straight and 1.6 times as long as 1-M (Fig. 10G).

TERGITES. First tergite broad (Fig. 10H), slightly broader behind than long, pair of spiracles near before middle of tergite, beyond spiracles tergite parallel-sided, hind half of scutum rugose, margin of scutum crenulate, lateral rim of tergite rugo-rugulose. Tergites 2-3 transverse, suture between them bisinuate and just subcrenulate; third tergite medially a bit longer than second tergite, second tergite 3.3 times as broad behind as long laterally. Tergites 2-3 longitudinally striate, third tergite laterally smooth (Fig. 10H), further tergites polished. Ovipositor sheath as long as hind tibia + tarsomeres 1-2 combined (right leg!).

COLOUR. Ground colour of body reddish yellow. Prosternum, propodeum and scutum behind (first tergite) dark to blackish brown. Tegula yellowish. Legs reddish yellow, hind coxa anteriorly dark to blackish brown. Hind tibia apically and all tarsi brownish fumous. Wings faintly fumous, pterostigma and veins light brownish.

Description of the head

The description is based on a ♀ quite identical to the ♀ lectotype (taken in Hungary, Makó, 12 July 1950, ex larva Dypessa ulula Borkhausen, Lep. Cossidae, leg. et educ. Dr. B. Nagy).

Antenna short, as long as head + mesosoma + tergites 1-2 combined and with 32 antennomeres. First flagellomere 1.4 times and penultimate flagellomere 1.2 times as long as broad, middle flagellomeres cubic and last 7-8 flagellomeres somewhat longer than broad. Head in dorsal view (Fig. 10A) transverse, almost 1.9 times as broad as long, eye somewhat protruding and almost 1.3 times length of temple, temple moderately rounded, occiput excavated. Oral opening fairly large, its horizontal diameter onethird longer than shortest distance between opening and compound eye (Fig. 10B). Head polished.

Variable features of the ♀ (32 ♀♀) (Figs 10 I-J; 11A-E)

Body 3-4.3, usually 3.5-4, mm long. Antenna with 26-33 antennomeres. Head in dorsal view less transverse, 1.7-1.85 times as broad as long, eye 1.2 to 1.4 times length of temple (Fig. 11A). Hind femur usually 2.5 times, less usually 2.8-2.9 times, as long as broad medially (Fig. 10 I-J). Pterostigma 2.7-3 times as long as wide, 3-SR 1.25-1.4 times as long as 2-SR (Fig. 11B). First discal cell more low to low, 1-M 1.4-1.6 times length of m-cu (Fig. 11C). First tergite beyond spiracles sometimes just broadening (Fig. 11D). Tergites 2-3 usually rather longitudinally rugose to rugulose ( var. curiosus Szépligeti; Fig. 11E), third tergite sometimes almost smooth ( var. lautus Szépligeti) or sculpture varying to nearly smooth tergites 2-3, i.e. rugo-rugulosity restricting around medio-basal field of second tergite. Vertex, mesoscutum, propodeum and first tergite with black pattern of variable extent. Tergites 2-3(4) rarely blackish to back medially.

Description of the ³ (47 ³³) (Figs 10 I-J; 11F-I)

Similar to the ♀. Body 2.8-3.5 mm long. Antenna about as long as body or somewhat shorter and with 30-35 antennomeres. Flagelloneres distally clearly longer than broad. Head in dorsal view (Fig. 11F) 1.6-1.7 times as broad as long. Hind femur 2.6-2.9 times as long as broad medially (Fig. 10 I-J). Second submarginal cell less short, 3-SR 1.4 to 1.5 times as long as 2-SR (Fig. 11G); SR1 rarely only approaching tip of wing. First discal cell sometimes less low, 1-M 1.9 times as long as m-cu (Fig. 11H). First tergite as long as broad (Fig. 11I) or slightly broader behind, tergites 2-3 usually less broad, 2.2-2.4 times as broad as long (Fig. 11I); second tergite rugose, third tergite rugose-rugulose, sculpture varying like that of ♀. Ground colour reddish yellow to testaceous with rich blackish to black pattern on head (vertex), mesoscutum, propodeum, mesopleuron, mesosternum and tergites 1-7.

Distribution

Palaearctic Region, Korea; in Europe widely distributed.

Hosts

COL. Buprestidae: Sphaeroptera jugoslavica Obenberger. Curculionidae: Lixus anguinus Linnaeus. Cerambycidae: Plagionotus floralis Linnaeus. — LEP. Cossidae:! Dyspessa ulula Borkhausen, new host. Sesiidae: Bembecia scopigera Scopoli. Noctuidae: Gortyna xanthenes Germar.

Taxonomic position

Within the subgenus Lucobracon the species Bracon fortipes is nearest to B. erraticus Wesmael (Palaearctic Region) viewing their wide first tergite and thick hind femur, the two species are separated by the following key features:

1 (2) Second tergite rugose, third tergite rugulose-subrugulose (Fig. 8J). Claw clearly downcurved (Fig. 8G). Forewing: second submarginl cell relatively less wide (as usually), 3-SR at most 1.3 times length of 2-SR (Figs 8H; 9D, G). Pterostigma brown (Figs 8H; 9D, G), ground colour of body black with more or less reddish yellow to yellow pattern. ♀ ♁: 2.5-4.5 mm ........ B. (Lu.) erraticus Wesmael, 1838

2 (1) Tergites 2-3 longitudinally striated (Fig. 10H) or longitudinally rugose-rugulose (Fig. 11E). Claw less downcurved (Fig. 10E). Forewing: second submarginal cell relatively wide, 3-SR (1.25-)1.4 times length of 2-SR (Fig. 10F). Pterostigma light brownish (Fig. 10F), ground colour of body reddish yellow with less dark pattern. ♀: (3-) 3.5-4.3 mm, ♁: 2.8-3.5 mm ............... B. (Lu.) fortipes Wesmael, 1838

By its yellowish reddish ground colour B. erraticus var. confinis (Szépligeti) superficially resembling B. fortipes; however, they are distinguished by the following key features:

1 (2) Claw less downcurved (Fig. 10E). Tergites 2-3 longitudinally striate (Fig. 10H). Pterostigma yellow. ♀ ♁: 2.8m- 4.3 mm .................................................................. B. (Lu.) fortipes Wesmael, 1838

2 (1) Claw more downcurved (Fig. 8G). Tergites 2-3 rugose-rugulose (Fig. 8J). Pterostigma opaque brown, exceptionally yellow. ♀ ♁: 2.5-5.5 mm ........ B. (Lu) erraticus var. confinis (Szépligeti, 1901)