Ismarus Haliday, 1835
|
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2018.417 |
|
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D5FDAA4D-D103-46E0-A65A-F0D27B77468F |
|
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5963037 |
|
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/1008657D-DC59-FF90-5DE7-FD572378F80F |
|
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
|
scientific name |
Ismarus Haliday, 1835 |
| status |
|
Identification key to Palaearctic species of Ismarus Haliday, 1835
Females
The female of I. brevis sp. nov. is unknown.
1. Body mainly pale yellowish to yellow, except at least mesoscutum, scutellum black ( Fig. 1B View Fig. 1 ) …… …………………………………………………………………… Ismarus dorsiger (Haliday, 1831) ̅ Body mainly dark brown or black ( Fig. 1A, C View Fig. 1 ̅G) …………………………………………………2
2. Posterior part of scutellum finely coriaceous or rugose ( Fig. 4D–E View Fig. 4 ) ………………………………3 ̅ Posterior part of scutellum smooth, sculptureless ( Figs 5D View Fig. 5 , 6C View Fig. 6 , 7D View Fig. 7 ) ………………………………4
3. Antenna uniformly brown to dark brown ( Fig. 1E View Fig. 1 ); posterior part of scutellum coriaceous; mesopleuron coriaceous-rugulose; metasoma deeply scaly-reticulate ……………………………… …………………………………………………………………… Ismarus rugulosus Förster, 1850
̅ Antenna uniformly bright yellow except for apical segment brownish ( Fig. 4A, D View Fig. 4 ); posterior part of scutellum rugose ( Fig. 4D–E View Fig. 4 ); mesopleuron smooth ( Fig. 4A View Fig. 4 ); metasoma weakly rugulose ( Fig. 4A, D View Fig. 4 ) ………………………………………… Ismarus distinctus Kim, Notton & Ødegaard sp. nov.
4. Scutellum truncate posteriorly, with hind margin straight ( Fig. 7D View Fig. 7 ); hind tibia abruptly swollen ( Fig. 7B View Fig. 7 ) …………………………………………………… Ismarus tripotini Kim & Lee sp. nov. ̅ Scutellum rounded posteriorly ( Figs 5D View Fig. 5 , 6C View Fig. 6 ); hind tibia gradually swollen ( Fig. 5B View Fig. 5 , 6A View Fig. 6 ) …………5
5. Mesopleuron with a continuous zone of sculpture extending from its anteroventral corner up to meso-metapleural suture ( Figs 1I View Fig. 1 , 6D View Fig. 6 ) ……………………………………………………………6 ̅ Mesopleuron without a continuous zone of sculpture ( Figs 1H View Fig. 1 , 5B View Fig. 5 ) ……………………………7
6. Antenna uniformly yellow ( Fig. 1G View Fig. 1 ); mesopleuron with deep longitudinal wrinkles ( Fig. 1I View Fig. 1 ); base of second tergite with long median furrow, extending to ¾ of segment …………………… ……………………………………………………………… Ismarus flavicornis ( Thomson, 1858)
̅ Antenna not uniformly yellow ( Fig. 6A View Fig. 6 ); mesopleuron with deep punctures to short irregular wrinkles ( Fig. 6D View Fig. 6 ); base of second tergite with short median furrow, extending 0.4̅0.5 × length of tergite ( Fig. 6E View Fig. 6 ) ……………………………………… Ismarus similis Kim, Notton & Lee sp. nov.
7. Notauli with 5̅8 pits; posterior half of S6 yellow …… Ismarus multiporus Kolyada & Chemyreva ̅ Notauli with 1̅2 pits; only margin of S6 yellow …………………………………………………8
8. Antenna uniformly bright yellowish or only A15 brown ( Fig. 1A, F View Fig. 1 ) ……………………………9 ̅ Antenna not bright yellow, variable ( Figs 1C View Fig. 1 ̅D, 5A) …………………………………………10 9. Antenna uniformly bright yellowish ( Fig. 1F View Fig. 1 ); anterior scutellar pit with median keel; radial cell as long as length of marginal vein ( Fig. 1F View Fig. 1 ); A7̅A14 subquadrate ………………………… ……………………………………………………… Ismarus spinalis Kolyada & Chemyreva, 2016
̅ Antenna bright yellow, except A15 brown ( Fig. 1A View Fig. 1 ); anterior scutellar pit without median keel; radial cell 0.8 × length of marginal vein ( Fig. 1A View Fig. 1 ); A7̅A14 elongate ……………………………… ……………………………………………………… Ismarus apicalis Kolyada & Chemyreva, 2016
10. POL much longer than OOL ( Fig. 5C View Fig. 5 ) …………………… Ismarus excavatus Kim & Lee sp. nov. ̅ POL slightly longer or as long as OOL ……………………………………………………………11
11. A4 as long as A1, slightly shorter than A3 ( Fig. 1D View Fig. 1 ) ……………… Ismarus grandis Alekseev, 1978 ̅ A4 shorter than A1 and A3 ( Fig. 1C View Fig. 1 ) ……………………………… Ismarus halidayi Förster, 1850
Males
The males of I. similis sp. nov. and I. tripotini sp. nov. are unknown.
1. A3 and A4 with keels ( Fig. 2H View Fig. 2 ) …………………… Ismarus spinalis Kolyada & Chemyreva, 2016 ̅ A3 without keel, keel on A4 extending at least to ¾ of segment ( Figs 3A View Fig. 3 , 4B View Fig. 4 , 5E View Fig. 5 ) ………………2
2. Posterior part of scutellum finely coriaceous or punctate-rugose …………………………………3 ̅ Posterior part of scutellum smooth, sculptureless ( Figs 3D View Fig. 3 , 6C View Fig. 6 ) ……………………………………4
3. Posterior part of scutellum coriaceous; mesopleuron coriaceous-rugulose; metasoma deeply scaly-reticulate ………………………………………………… Ismarus rugulosus Förster, 1850 ̅ Posterior part of scutellum punctate-rugose ( Fig. 4D–E View Fig. 4 ); mesopleuron smooth ( Fig. 4A View Fig. 4 ); metasoma weakly rugulose ( Fig. 4D–E View Fig. 4 ) …… Ismarus distinctus Kim, Notton & Ødegaard sp. nov.
4. Mandibles white; notauli absent ……………………………… Ismarus dorsiger (Haliday, 1831) ̅ Mandibles black; notauli present ………………………………………………………………… 5
5. Mesopleuron with a continuous zone of sculpture extending from its anteroventral corner up to meso-metapleural suture ( Fig. 2C View Fig. 2 ) ………………………… Ismarus flavicornis ( Thomson, 1858) ̅ Mesopleuron without a continuous zone of sculpture ( Figs 2A, D View Fig. 2 ̅F, 3B, 5F) ……………………6
6. Radial cell shorter than marginal vein ( Fig. 2A View Fig. 2 ) …… Ismarus apicalis Kolyada & Chemyreva, 2016 ̅ Radial cell as long as marginal vein ( Figs 2D View Fig. 2 ̅F, 3B, 5F) …………………………………………7
7. Notauli with 5̅8 pits ………………………… Ismarus multiporus Kolyada & Chemyreva, 2016 ̅ Notauli with 1̅2 pits ( Figs 3D View Fig. 3 ) ……………………………………………………………………8
8. A3 shorter than A4 ( Fig. 5F View Fig. 5 ) ………………………………………………………………………9 ̅ A3 as long as or slightly longer than A4 ( Fig. 3A View Fig. 3 ) …………………………………………………10
9. POL as long as OOL; antennal segments distinctly elongate, at least 2.0 × width of each segment ( Fig. 2D View Fig. 2 ); A4 as long as A1 ( Fig. 2D View Fig. 2 ); A4 slightly excavate ( Fig. 2D View Fig. 2 ); base of second tergite with long median furrow, at least to ¾ of segment …………… Ismarus grandis Alekseev, 1978
̅ POL longer than OOL; antennal segments not distinctly elongate, A5̅A13 only slightly longer than wide ( Fig. 2E View Fig. 2 ); A4 shorter than A1 ( Fig. 5F View Fig. 5 ); A4 distinctly excavate ( Fig. 5F View Fig. 5 ); base of second tergite with short median furrow, extending 0.4 × length of tergite … Ismarus excavatus Kim & Lee sp. nov.
10. POL longer than OOL ( Fig. 3C View Fig. 3 ); A7̅A13 quadrate, as long as wide each segment ( Fig. 3A View Fig. 3 ); notauli present anteriorly as large pits ( Fig. 3D View Fig. 3 ) ……………………… Ismarus brevis Kim & Lee sp. nov. ̅ POL as long as OOL; A7̅A13 longer than wide each segment ( Fig. 2E View Fig. 2 ); notauli present anteriorly, as oblique, elongate pits …………………………………………… Ismarus halidayi Förster, 1850
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
|
Kingdom |
|
|
Phylum |
|
|
Class |
|
|
Order |
|
|
Family |