Enicospilus capensis (Thunberg, 1824) Figure 12

Ichneumon capensis Thunberg, 1824: 262; HT ♀ from South Africa, ZIUU, not examined; note that we follow Horstmann (2000) in regarding the authorship of Thunberg’s ichneumonid names as dating from 1824, not 1822; the latter is often incorrectly used (e.g., Yu et al. 2016).

Ophion lativertex Taschenberg, 1875: 435; HT ♀ from Java, FZLU, not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Ophion antankarus Saussure, 1892: 15; type ♂ from Madagascar, MNHN, not examined; synonymised by Townes and Townes (1973: 174).

Henicospilus montinus Enderlein, 1921: 21; HT ♀ from Java, IZPAN, not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Henicospilus praedator Enderlein, 1921: 28; HT ♀ from Madagascar, IZPAN, not examined; synonymised by Townes and Townes (1973: 175).

Henicospilus incarinatus Enderlein, 1921: 30; HT ♂ from Madagascar, IZPAN, not examined; synonymised by Townes and Townes (1973: 175).

Henicospilus euxoae Wilkinson, 1928: 261; HT ♀ from Zimbabwe, NHMUK, examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1978: 143).

Enicospilus obnoxius Seyrig, 1935: 75; LCT ♀ from Kenya, designated by Townes and Townes (1973: 18), MNHN, not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1978: 143).

Henicospilus yanagiharai Sonan, 1940: 371; HT ♂ from Ryûkyû Island, TARI, examined (Fig. 12); synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Enicospilus selvaraji Rao and Kurian, 1950: 174, 178, 180, 188; nomen nudum.

Enicospilus selvaraji Rao and Kurian, 1951: 68; HT ♀ from India, ZSI, not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Enicospilus fossatus Chiu, 1954: 63; HT ♀ from Malaysia, TARI, examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Enicospilus indica Rao and Grover, 1960: 280; HT ♀ from India, MUC, destroyed (cf. Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385)), not examined; synonymised by Gauld and Mitchell (1981: 385).

Specimens examined.

Total of 112 specimens (66♀♀42♂♂ and 4 unsexed): Japan (1♀), India (57♀♀41♂♂), Kenya (2♀♀1♂ and 1 unsexed), Madagascar (1♀ and 1 unsexed), Malaysia (1♀), Saudi Arabia (1 unsexed), South Africa (1♀), Uganda (2♀♀ and 1 unsexed), Zimbabwe (1♀).

Type series: HT ♂ of Henicospilus yanagiharai Sonan, 1940, Kitadaitô-jima, Okinawa Pref., Ryûkyûs, JAPAN, 18.III.1939, M. Yanagihara leg. (TARI) (Fig. 12); HT ♀ of Enicospilus fossatus Chiu, 1954, Jahore, MALAYSIA, 1.X.1916, J. Sonan leg. (TARI); HT ♀ of Henicospilus euxoae Wilkinson, 1928, Salisbury, ZIMBABWE, 31.XII.1927, J.I. Roberts leg. (from Euxoa) (NHMUK, Type 3b.1289).

Distribution.

Afrotropical, Australasian, Oceanic, and Oriental regions (Yu et al. 2016).

JAPAN: [ Ryûkyûs] Okinawa (Sonan 1940; present study).

This species has a very wide distribution from South East Asia to South Africa. According to Gauld and Mitchell (1981), this distribution pattern is hardly surprising when considering many of their host moths are also widely distributed throughout the Old World tropics. Enicospilus capensis is frequently encountered as a parasitoid of economically important noctuid moths; however, only a single specimen has been collected in Japan.

Bionomics.

Recorded from various Lepidoptera hosts, but reliable records are mainly from Noctuidae (e.g., Gauld and Mitchell 1981; Nikam and Gaikwad 1989; Nikam 1990). No host records from Japan.

Differential diagnosis.

The Japanese specimen of E. capensis is very easily distinguishable from all other Japanese Enicospilus specimens on account of very wide face (i.e., lower face 1.2 × as wide as high, as in Fig. 12B) and long mandible. This species is morphologically similar to E. ramidulus, but distinguishable by the following combination of morphological characters: metapleuron matt (Fig. 12E) (metapleuron evenly moderately punctate and never matt in E. ramidulus, as in Fig. 39E); metasoma usually entirely orange-brown (Fig. 12A) (posterior metasomal segments usually strongly infuscate in E. ramidulus, as in Fig. 39A). This species is usually morphologically rather uniform, but the Japanese specimen has a much broader lower face than others (Fig. 12B). However, there does not seem to be enough of a difference to justify a separate species, as Gauld and Mitchell (1981) also concluded.