Rhimphoctona longicauda Horstmann, 1980

Varga, Oleksandr, 2017, A review of the genus Rhimphoctona Förster, 1869 (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae: Campopleginae) from the Ukrainian Carpathians, with a key to European species, Zootaxa 4263 (2), pp. 387-394 : 390

Rhimphoctona longicauda Horstmann, 1980

( Figs 1 , 3 , 4 )

Material examined. Ukrainian Carpathians: female, Ivano-Frankivsk Region, Bogorodchany District , Gorgany , 48°36'42.77"N, 24°09'10.69"E, 1200 m, coniferous forest, 5 km SW of Stara Guta, sweep netting, 1.vii.2012 ; 2 females, ibid., 20.vi.2013; 2 females, Nadvirna District, Gorgany, Elmy , 48°24’39.50”N, 24°24’50.28”E, 800–900 m, coniferous forest, 15 km SW of Yaremche, sweep netting, 14.vii.2011 ; 2 females, ibid., 20.vi.2012. Additional material: 1 female from ZSM collection and 1 female from BNHM collection (identified as R. melanura , see comments below).

Diagnosis. The female of this species is characterized by the black hind coxae; short and weakly narrowed (or almost parallel) temples ( Fig. 1 . 6); strongly sculptured mesoscutum; sparsely punctate mesopleuron ( Fig. 3. 1 ); propodeum with distinct costulae and distally wide area basalis ( Fig. 4 . 8); and the ovipositor which is about 1.5 × the length of hind tibia. The male is unknown and K. Horstmann (1980) considered that this species is probably characterized by the telytok parthenogenesis, while M. Sanborne (1986b) noted that males from Nearctic have partly yellow mesosoma.

Distribution. Western Palaearctic, Nearctic ( Yu et al. 2012), new record for Ukraine.

Remarks. According to Yu et al. (2012) the type female specimen of this species should be in the collection of ZSM. After examination of this collection I did not find any type specimens. Only one female specimen, collected in Sweden, was found in the personal K. Horstmann’s collection (stored in ZSM) . The label with species name in the box was marked with red, but pinned label under specimen was usual. Moreover, this specimen has unusual wing venation (open areolet) and possibly belongs to another genus. Thus, to understand what constitutes R. longicauda I used a single female specimen from BNHM identified by K. Horstmann as R. melanura before he excluded R. longicauda as a separate species.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Rhimphoctona spp., dorsal view of head, female. 1 — R. grandis; 2 — R. rufocoxalis; 3 — R. lucida; 4 — R. xoridiformis; 5 — R. teredo; 6 — R. longicauda; 7 — R. maiator; 8 — R. pectoralis.

FIGURE 3. Rhimphoctona spp., lateral view of mesopleuron, female. 1 — R. longicauda; 2 — R. melanura; 3 — R. megacephalus; 4 — R. pectoralis.

FIGURE 4. Rhimphoctona spp., dorsal view of propodeum, female. 1 — R. grandis; 2 — R. rufocoxalis; 3 — R. lucida; 4 — R. obscuripes; 5 — R. teredo; 6 — R. xoridiformis; 7 — R. melanura; 8 — R. longicauda; 9 — R. megacephalus; 10 — R. maiator; 11 — R.? megacephalus / melanura; 12 — R. pectoralis.