Foenatopus turcomanorum (Semenov)

Aguiar, Alexandre P., Jennings, John T. & Turrisi, Giuseppe F., 2010, Three new Middle-Eastern species of Foenatopus Smith (Hymenoptera: Stephanidae) with a new host record and key to species with two spots on the metasoma, Zootaxa 2714, pp. 40-58 : 54-57

Foenatopus turcomanorum (Semenov)

( Figs 1 [tr], 47–54)

Stephanus turcomanorum Semenov, 1891: 435 , Ψ. Holotype in ZIN (examined) (type locality: “Transcaspien, oasis Tedschen” [ Turkmenistan]).

Stephanus turcomanorum: Dalla Torre, 1901: 9 . Listed, distribution.

Stephanus Turcomanorum : Kieffer, 1905: 489, Ψ. Distribution, key.

Foenatopus turcomanorum: Kieffer, 1908: 6 . Listed, distribution.

Foenatopus turcomanorum: Elliott, 1922: 783 , 791, Ψ. Description, distribution, key.

Foenotopus [sic!] turcomanorum: Tobias, 1988: 392 , Ψ, ɗ. Distribution, figure, key.

Foenatopus turcomanorum: Belokobylskij, 1995: 16 . Figure.

Foenatopus turcomanorum: Aguiar & Jennings, 2010: 303 , 304. Biometric data, compared with F. bisignatus .

Redescription. FEMALE holotype. Length 10.00 mm, ovipositor 8.65 mm. Biometric ratios as in Table 1 and Fig. 1 [tr].

Head ( Figs 47–48 ). Antenna with 22 flagellomeres; flagellomeres 1 and 20–22 without tyloids, flagellomeres 2–19 with 1–5 tyloids, central flagellomeres with more tyloids than the basal and apical ones. Frons ventrally transversely rugose, otherwise areolate; microreticulate between rugosities; frontal carina indistinct. Coronal area without carinae radiating from central ocellus except several carinae radiating posteriorly from central tubercles, texture between macrosculpture somewhat alutaceous; posterior pair of tubercles low and wide. Vertex anteriorly, behind posterior pair of tubercles, with large transverse carina approximately shaped as an inverted “U”, the area behind it widely smooth and polished, followed by short transverse carina; both carinae continuing into an areolaterugose pattern on vertex, this pattern becoming transversely rugose towards occipital carina; vertex without dorsolongitudinal impression. Gena micro-areolate, centrally very weakly alutaceous (appearing smooth), with several striations near hypostomal bridge; genal angle in dorsal view weakly prominent. Occipital carina a narrow rim, ventrally almost reaching hypostomal carina. Postgenal bridge alutaceous, except several striations near end of occipital carina; postgenal bridge almost immediately concave behind hypostomal carina, deep.

Mesosoma . Prosternum distinctly micro-areolate, apex emarginated as a “V.” Pronotum ( Figs 49–50 ) strigate with alutaceous microsculpture; anterior margin emarginated as a “U”, nearly as deep as wide; neck dorsally weakly concave, confluent with preannular, pronotal fold absent; preannular and semiannular transversely rugosestrigate and micro-areolate between; femoral impression absent; pronotal lobe weakly distinct from semiannular, crossed by strong strigation. Mesoscutum strongly transversely areolate-rugose; median sulcus linear; notaulus inconspicuous. Axilla alutaceous, mesally with several shallow foveolae. Scutellum alutaceous medially, with sparse, distinct, shallow foveolae; laterally with several longitudinal striations. Mesepisternum dorsally rugulose to centrally and posteriorly areolate-rugose, with a few striations posteriorly. Mesopseudosternum finely alutaceous, discrimen straight, uniform, not crenulate. Propodeum ( Fig. 52 ) coarsely rugose; spiracular groove and parapetiolar depression indistinct; carina of spiracular groove indicated by confluent rugosity; anterior and posterior spiracular plates indistinct. Metapleuron ( Fig. 52 ) anteriorly micro-areolate, centrally and posteriorly strongly areolaterugose. Pleuropropodeal and metapleural foveae inconspicuous; interfoveolar area crenulate, deep; postfoveolar area inconspicuous, concealed by metapleural sculpture. Hind coxa transversely strigate; hind femur ( Fig. 51 ) micro-areolate, finer basally and apically; ventrally at basal 0.2 with short triangular tooth, centrally and at apical 0.7 with long triangular tooth; 1 small tubercle between basal and central tooth, 3 small tubercles between largest teeth, 3 beyond apical tooth, the last having three apices; mesal side of teeth and tubercles between, smooth; all teeth and tubercle apices bearing single short hair. Hind tibia longitudinally alutaceous; compressed part ventrally with two parallel longitudinal carinae reaching dilated part, where both change into distinctly convergent strigation; dilated part in posterior view with a strong mesal compression, producing oblique border, mesally with long, golden pilosity; [relative size of mesal and lateral tibial spurs hard to determine due to relative position of legs on mounted specimen].

Wings. Fore wing ( Fig. 53 ) venation beyond 1cu-a and 1M spectral, except pterostigma fully distinct, vein 1Cu spectral only in apical 0.2, crossvein 2r entirely tubular and continuous with 4Rs, which disappears just over half distance from wing margin; vein M+Cu with three widely spaced, subapical setae; vein 1M fused with 1Rs, perfectly straight; crossvein 1cu-a slightly postfurcal; vein 1-1A with four widely spaced, long, sub-basal setae, 2- 1A very short. Hind wing with vein Sc+R entirely tubular; other veins missing.

Metasoma ( Fig. 54 ). Petiole finely, densely, transversely to irregularly strigate; T3–8 finely transversely alutaceous. Pygidium a convex plate, wide, posterior margin weakly emarginate; pygidial impression deep, intermediate between V- and U-shaped.

Color. Brown. Head brown with reddish tones; clypeus cream; mandible apex black; antenna light brown; gena light brown, except below eye with pale yellow spot; prothorax, including fore legs, brown with reddish, except tarsi light brown; mesothorax dark brown, mid legs brown, except tibia basal 0.1 and tarsi cream; hind leg brown with reddish; basal and central teeth on ventral side of femur whitish; basitarsus from apically light brown to cream basally. Propodeum and metapleuron dark reddish brown. Petiole basal 0.1 and apical 0.1 light brown to cream, centrally brown. Metasoma brown, T4 medially on each side with a large whitish spot. Ovipositor sheath brown. Wings hyaline, veins light brown, pterostigma basal one third whitish. Given the age of the specimen, the ‘cream’ colors above may originally have been yellowish.

Male and morphological variation. Tobias (1988) is the only source of information for the male and for morphological variation for the species, but the true identity of the specimens examined by that author remains to be checked (see discussion below). Tobias (1988) reported total body length ranging from 10.0– 13.5 mm for females, and 5.5–12.0 mm for males; body color dark, dark brown or reddish, and petiole “sometimes” with white spots on apex and base. This implies that either females or males, or both, might lack the petiole spots, but this has been observed here only for F. hesperophagus . An unusual fore wing venation was illustrated by Tobias (1988) for this species, but it is actually most similar to that of F. bisignatus , as can be observed on the holotype specimen, also illustrated by Belokobylskij (1995).

Discussion. Similar to F. bisignatus , F. hesperophagus , and F. crispus , from which it can be separated by the strigate pronotum, and the small and widely spaced double white spots on T4. Other relevant distinguishing features are given in the key to species.

This species was described from a single specimen ( Semenov 1891); the description was later partially translated by Kieffer (1905). In the key provided by Tobias (1988), it is implied that extra female specimen(s) and males of F. turcomanorum were studied. This would represent the rediscovery of the female, and the first literature record for males of this species. However, none of the specimens have been examined for the present work, and their identity cannot be confirmed. Because of this, and considering the reasonable degree of difficulty in recognizing similar species of this group, the information provided by Tobias (1988) should be considered doubtful, pending confirmation of their identification. Belokobylskij (1995) also illustrated the fore wing. In both cases, the species is only mentioned in keys ( Tobias 1988; Belokobylskij 1995) and not discussed further.

Material examined. HOLOTYPE Ψ ( ZIN) with three labels “Теджен [Tedzhen] / 11.VI. [18]88 / А. Семенов [handwritten, Cyrillic] // Stephanus turcomanorum / m. / typ. Ψ un[ique] AS.V.[18]91 [handwritten] // Foenatopus / turcomanorum / Ψ Typ. un[ique] Sem. [handwritten] / A. Semenov-Tian-Shansky det. VI.[19]27 [typed].”

Distribution. Turkmenistan ( Semenov 1891), Tajikistan, Afghanistan ( Tobias 1988).

Figures

FIGURE 1. Values of all morphometric ratios for all examined specimens of all species. The slightly higher triangle in each species’ series indicates the female holotype specimen; all other triangles correspond to males. See Table 1 for ranges. Ratios as in Aguiar (2001).

FIGURES 47 – 54. Foenatopus turcomanorum, Ψ, holotype: 47. Head and apex of pronotum, right side, flipped image; 48. Head dorso-anteriorly; 49. Pronotum, dorsal; 50. Pronotum, right side, flipped image; 51. Femur, right side, flipped image; 52. Mesosoma, right side, flipped image; 53. Fore wing, petiole, T 4 and T 5, dorso-lateral view; 54. Metasoma, dorsal. Images not to scale. All images by John T. Jennings.