Rhinotorus Förster, 1869

Reshchikov, Alexey V., 2016, A revision of the genus Rhinotorus Förster, 1869 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ctenopelmatinae), with descriptions of three new species and an illustrated identification key, European Journal of Taxonomy 235 (235), pp. 1-40 : 36-37

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2016.235
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:1A763AF4-A12F-4CCF-94CB-3981D29D7E55
DOI	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3854592
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03ADBD19-5C2B-FFF0-4BE5-A5D0FAB5FCE2
treatment provided by	Valdenar
scientific name	Rhinotorus Förster, 1869
status

Treatment

Key to species of the genus Rhinotorus Förster, 1869 View in CoL View at ENA

1. Metasoma entirely black, without any reddish colouration ( Figs 4E View Fig , 5E, I View Fig , 6D View Fig , 11A, C, D View Fig , 14 View Fig , 15C View Fig ), sometimes male tergites reddish or brownish centrally or on hind margins ...............................….. 2

– Metasoma partly distinctly reddish ( Figs 3E View Fig , 7E View Fig , 8B, E View Fig , 9 View Fig B–C, 10E, 12C, 13C) ............................. 6

2. Scutellum yellow ( Fig. 11C View Fig ). Face black a yellow spot above each clypeal fovea ( Fig. 11B View Fig ) ............ ......................................................................................................................... R. ovalis ( Davis, 1897) View in CoL

– Scutellum black ( Fig. 15D View Fig ). Female face black without yellow spots ( Figs 5A View Fig , 6A View Fig , 15A View Fig ) .............. 3

3. Female with each coxa darkly coloured. Male with only hind coxa black (the rest yellow) ( Figs 4E View Fig , 5I View Fig , 6D View Fig ). Hind tibia black apically and reddish-yellow basally ( Figs 4E View Fig , 5I View Fig , 6D View Fig ). Metasomal tergites 1–3 strongly punctate and with strong transverse impressions ( Figs 5E View Fig , 6C View Fig ) ................................... 4

– Each coxa yellowish-red ( Fig. 14 View Fig ). Hind tibia black basally and apically and yellow centrally ( Fig. 14 View Fig ). First and second metasomal tergites with weak transverse impressions, third metasomal tergite without impression, granulated and impunctate ( Fig. 15C View Fig ) .... R. umbrarum ( Holmgren, 1857) View in CoL

4. Face and mesopleuron shining and rather densely and distinctly punctate ( Fig. 5A, H View Fig ). Face and clypeus strongly projecting apically. Hind tibia entirely black ( Fig. 5I View Fig ) ............................................. .......................................................................................................... R. compactor (Thumberg, 1822) View in CoL

– Face and mesopleuron matt or weakly shining, shagreened and either impunctate or weakly punctate ( Figs 4A, D View Fig , 6 View Fig A–B). Face and clypeus weakly projecting. Hind tibia reddish basally ( Figs 6 View Fig D–E) .. ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

5. First metasomal tergite convex in profile. Male with mesoscutum and mesopleuron black ( Fig. 6B View Fig ). Parameres thin ........................................................................................................ R. jussilai sp. nov.

– First metasomal tergite flat in profile ( Fig. 4E View Fig ). Male with lateral lobes of mesoscutum and lower part of mesopleuron yellow ( Fig. 4D View Fig ). Parameres broad ( Fig. 4 View Fig B–C) .............. R. campester sp. nov.

6. Female face with yellow spots ( Fig. 12A View Fig ). Ramulus on the 1m-cu present ( Fig. 12C View Fig ). Propodeum with area basalis and area superomedia separated by carina ( Fig. 12B View Fig ). Hind wing with cu-a intercepted far below middle, almost at vein 1A ( Fig. 12C View Fig ) ......................................... R. similis ( Brischke, 1892) View in CoL

– Female face entirely black ( Figs 3A View Fig , 7D View Fig , 8C View Fig , 9A View Fig , 10A View Fig , 13A View Fig ). Ramulus absent ( Figs 3E View Fig , 8E View Fig , 9C View Fig ). Propodeum with area basalis and area superomedia continuous ( Figs 3C View Fig , 7C View Fig , 9B View Fig , 10C View Fig ). Hind wing with cu-a intercepted at or below middle but always distant from vein 1A ....................................... 7

7. First metasomal tergite not projecting at spiracles and gradually narrowing towards its base ( Fig. 10D View Fig ). Clypeus relatively thin and projecting ( Fig. 10A View Fig ) ......... R. nasutus ( Gravenhorst, 1829) View in CoL

– First metasomal tergite projecting at spiracles or strongly constricted basally ( Figs 7A View Fig , 9B View Fig ). Clypeus relatively wide and not projecting ( Figs 8C View Fig , 9A View Fig ) .............................................................................. 8

8. Scutellum yellow ( Fig. 7B View Fig ) ........................................................ R. leucostomus ( Gravenhorst, 1829) View in CoL – Scutellum black ( Fig. 8A View Fig ) ................................................................................................................. 9

9. Metasoma (excluding first metasomal tergite) reddish ( Fig. 8B View Fig ). Mesopleuron shining and distinctly punctate ................................................................................. R. longicornis ( Schmiedeknecht, 1914)

– Metasoma with central tergites reddish ( Figs 3E View Fig , 9B View Fig , 13C View Fig ). Mesopleuron coriaceous, matt, and impunctate ....................................................................................................................................... 10

10. Transverse impression of first and second metasomal tergites rather distinct ( Fig. 13C View Fig ). Hind femur 4.2 times as long as broad and with basal tarsomere of hind tarsus more stout (6 times as long as broad) ( Fig. 13D View Fig ) ................................................................................................ R. tarsilatus sp. nov.

– Transverse impression of first and second metasomal tergites weak ( Figs 3E View Fig , 9B View Fig ). Hind femur 5 times as long as broad and with basal tarsomere of hind tarsus more slender (9–12.5 times as long as broad) ( Figs 3E View Fig , 9C View Fig ) ........................................................................................................................ 11

11. Head roundish in anterior view ( Fig. 9A View Fig ). Transverse impression of first metasomal tergite clearly defined ( Fig. 9B View Fig ) .......................................................................... R. mesocostanus ( Thomson, 1894)

– Head diamond shaped in anterior ( Fig. 3A View Fig ). Transverse impression of first metasomal tergite not defined ( Fig. 3E View Fig ) ......................................................................................... R. alpinus ( Roman, 1909)