Mimopria Holmgren, 1908: 346

MASNER, LUBOMÍR & GARCÍA R, JOSÉ LUIS, 2002, The Genera Of Diapriinae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) In The New World, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2002 (268), pp. 1-138 : 89-92

Mimopria Holmgren, 1908: 346 .

Atrichopria Kieffer, 1910b: 55 . Synonymized by Masner, 1959: 361–367.

Kiefferopria Brèthes, 1927b: 333 . Synonymized by Masner, 1959: 361–367.

DIAGNOSIS (♀ 3): Predominantly large sized robust individuals (3.5– 5 mm), rarely smaller; body predominantly light to dark ferrugineous, in females entirely sculptured and matte (including tegula) except metasoma past petiole sometimes contrastingly smooth and shining, sculpture of males generally finer, with parts of head and mesosoma smooth; body generally with scattered long stiff erect or slanted bristles, bristles often truncate apically; foamy structures or hairy cushions not developed; postgena rarely with golden pegs; frons armed with two to three projections; palpi very short, palpal formula 3–2; hypostomal bridge absent in that base of maxilla touches occipital flange; mesopleuron medially with shallow oblique declivity; dorsellum usually weakly defined, without keels; propodeum distinctly elongate, with median keel and plicae at most weakly developed, separated from metanotum by rather deep broad cleft; metasternum anteriorly (behind mesocoxa) without deep semicircular cleft and without forked furca ventrally.

DESCRIPTION (♀ 3): HEAD. Head in dorsal view subangular, in frontal view rhomboidal, hypognathous, face elongate, frons armed with two to three projections, in lateral view head higher than long; antennal shelf large, with anterior margin sharply projecting, bladelike, shelf located in upper half of eye; eye medium­large, eye height usually shorter than half of head height, eye ovoid, usually highly convex, posterior orbit usually straight, ommatidia usually large and convex; ocelli large and highly convex; temple behind eye abruptly receding, sinuate or almost straight; malar sulcus not developed; mandible bidentate, lower tooth remarkably long and slender, upper tooth short and truncate; palpi relatively short, palpal formula 3– 2; oral carina strongly developed; postgena rarely with row of strong golden pegs; gena and postgena without fine pilosity; postgenal cushion never developed; cheek in frontal view nonangular; hypostomal bridge not developed, base of maxilla touching occipital flange; occipital flange always well developed, broad, but only moderately steplike; female antenna 12­segmented, clava multisegmented (usually 5 segments), semiabrupt, cylindrical clavomeres slightly transverse, noncompact, A12 slightly larger than A11; A1 elongate, cylindrical, rounded apically; male antenna 14­segmented, with scattered, randomly spaced erect bristles on antennomeres A3–A13, A4 not sexually modified; A7– A12 without special brushes. MESOSOMA. Mesosoma as high as wide; pronotal shoulders not developed but sides of pronotum flattened; epomium not developed; pronotum in subcervical region sometimes with dense pilosity; propleuron and anterior side of pronotum without foamy structures or cushion of hairs but sometimes with denser pilosity; cervix of prothorax relatively long; mesoscutum usually slightly elongate, convex in lateral view, admedian and parapsidal lines usually present; scutellum distinctly trapezoidal, anterior scutellar pit usually deep and well developed but shorter than scutellar disc, often with longitudinal grooves or rugulae on bottom; scutellar disc moderately convex, unarmed dorsally, median keel usually not developed, lateral keels not developed, sides of scutellar disc sloping roundly into axillar depression; axillar depression usually well developed, glabrous or with short, sparse pilosity; mesopleuron predominantly flat with shallow oblique declivity medially; dorsellum usually weakly defined, without longitudinal keels; dorsellum separated from propodeum by deep, broad cleft; metapleuron large, finely rugulose, usually only with few scattered hairs, rarely with fine appressed pilosity, metasternum anteriorly (immediately posterior to mesocoxa) without cleft and without forked furca ventrally; propodeum elongate, almost as long as high, with various sculpture, median keel not developed, rarely rudimentary, plica at most weakly developed; posterior margin of propodeum either generally rounded, or sharply angular and projecting, never produced into semitransparent laminae; wings primarily developed, forewing distinctly longer than body, slightly to strongly infuscate, marginal cilia extremely short, submarginal vein almost straight, relatively short, not exceeding basal third of wing length, marginal vein subtriangular, stigmal vein very rarely developed, basal vein not developed, wings secondarily missing in many female specimens; legs remarkably long and slender; femora and tibiae nonclavate, only slightly progressively incrassate, subcylindrical, all (especially hind) tarsi elongate, slightly to strongly compressed, apex of anterior tibia without special spine dorsally, anterior tibial spur short, straight, and bifid. METASOMA. Petiole in dorsal view distinctly elongate, robust, usually subcylindrical, either convex or flattened dorsally, sometimes with longitudinal carinae, in lateral view not curved, often widest in middle, with fine dense pilosity and scattered semierect bristles; metasoma past petiole remarkably short, in lateral view only slightly convex dorsally, but strongly convex ventrally; entire syntergite with sparse semierect stiff bristles; anterior margin of syntergite tightly attached to apex of petiole; anterior margin of S2 usually moderately excavate; specialized spot on S2 always distinct, either contiguous with or remote from anterior margin of S2; apex of female metasoma moderately pointed, apical sternite sparsely hairy.

RECOGNITION AND RELATIONSHIPS: Previous concepts of Mimopria (e.g., Borgmeier, 1939; Masner, 1959) also included the new genus Mimopriella . The two genera are now distinguished primarily by cephalic character states (frons armed in Mimopria , unarmed in Mimopriella ), structure of male antenna, different type of setae on body (stiff apically truncate in Mimopria , decumbent and tapering apically in Mimopriella ), presence ( Mimopriella ) or absence ( Mimopria ) of metasternal cleft, and shape of metasoma. Mimopria in our concept is close to Notoxoides because of the armed frons and heavily sculptured body.

DISTRIBUTION: Interestingly enough, Mimopria and Notoxoides are restricted in distribution to the tropical lowlands of continental South America (from Argentina to southern Venezuela). Masner (1959) and Loiácono (1981) keyed Mimopria species in South America.

BIOLOGY: Species of Mimopria were recorded associated with ecitonine genera Eciton , Labidus , and Nomamyrmex ( Loiácono, 1981) . Members of Mimopria display a high degree of adaptive morphology for life with host ants, such as rugulose sculpture, specialized setae, lytic alectomy, etc. ( Masner, 1976; Huggert and Masner, 1983). Unlike in Notoxoides the sex ratio is heavily slanted toward females in Mimopria ; in rich CNCI material only a few males were found.

Mimopriella , new genus Figures 63, 64

DIAGNOSIS (♀ 3): Medium to large­sized individuals (2.5– 4 mm); body in most species light to dark ferrugineous, partly smooth and shining, with patches of coriaceous sculpture, rarely entire head, mesosoma and petiole finely scaly­rugulose, tegula always smooth; body generally with scattered long straight or semidecumbent, tapered bristles; foamy structures or hairy cushions not developed, sometimes postgena with row of stiff golden pegs; frons unarmed; hypostomal bridge narrow or confluent with occipital flange; metasternum anteriorly (behind mesocoxa) with deep semicircular cleft; propodeum elongate, distinctly tapering posteriorly, median keel and plica at most weak or rudimentary, propodeum entirely rugulose, usually only sparsely hairy, posterior margin of propodeum often sharply projecting, without transparent laminae; entire syntergite smooth, with evenly scattered semierect yellow bristles.

DESCRIPTION (♀ 3): HEAD. Head perfectly globular, hypognathous, frons unarmed; antennal shelf moderate, located in middle of eye; face elongate or quadrate; eye mediumlarge, eye height subequal to half of head height, eye ovoid, higher than wide, posterior orbit straight or slightly sinuate, ommatidia usually large and convex; temple behind eye gradually roundly receding; ocelli large and highly convex; malar sulcus never developed; mandible bidentate, lower tooth longer than upper tooth, upper tooth truncate; palpal formula 5–2; oral carina strongly developed; gena and postgena usually without fine pilosity; postgenal cushion never developed, but in some species postgena with row of strong golden pegs; cheek in frontal view nonangular; hypostomal bridge very narrow, rarely even contiguous with ventral margin of occipital flange; occipital flange usually well developed, broad and steplike, rarely absent; female antenna 12­segmented, clava semiabrupt, multisegmented (5–7 segments), clavomeres always subquadrate, noncompact, with short pilosity, A12 not enlarged, A1 elongate, cylindrical, and rounded apically; male antenna 14­segmented, A3 and A4 distinctly separate, A3 slightly constrict­ ed medially with two whorls of verticillate bristles, A4 not sexually modified, A4–A13 constricted basally, distinctly knotted in distal part, with one whorl of verticillate hairs each, A7–A12 without special brushes. ME­ SOSOMA. Mesosoma about as high as wide; pronotal shoulders usually not developed but sides of pronotum in dorsal view well visible; epomium at most rudimentary; propleuron and anterior side of pronotum without foamy structures or cushion of hairs, pro­ pleuron often with fine dense pilosity; cervix of prothorax relatively long, constriction between head and mesosoma remarkable; mesoscutum usually slightly wider than long, highly convex in lateral view, usually with parapsidal keels, rarely with parapsidal sulci; scutellum distinctly trapezoidal, anterior scutellar pit usually shallow, slightly transverse, distinctly shorter than scutellar disc, often with fine longitudinal keels, rarely pit sharply margined; scutellar disc moderately convex, unarmed dorsally, usually with moderate median keel, lateral keels in females usually weakly developed, in males moderately developed; axillar depression in females generally not well defined, rudimentary or absent; axilla posteriorly sloping down roundly, axillar depression in males usually well defined and axilla posteriorly sharp; mesopleuron in most species strongly convex, rarely flat; dorsellum defined, longitudinal keels usually weak; metapleuron large, coarsely rugulose, usually only with few scattered hairs, rarely with fine appressed pilosity; metasternum anteriorly (immediately posterior to mesocoxa) with deep semicircular cleft; propodeum remarkably elongate, tapered posteriorly, entirely rugulose, median keel generally weakly developed, at most indicat­ ed only anteriorly, propodeal plica indistinct; posterolateral corners of propodeum sometimes strongly produced; posterior margin on propodeum deeply excavate, posterior margin not produced into transparent laminae; wings primarily developed, forewing distinctly longer than body, generally slightly infuscate in basal third, sometimes bronzy, in some individuals reduced to stumps; submarginal vein relatively short and running strongly adjacent to anterior margin of wing; stigmal vein relatively well developed; basal vein not developed; legs very long and slen­ der; hind femur basally slightly compressed and curved, apex of all femora with flaps, hind tibia cylindrical, only shortly attenuate basally; tarsi elongate, moderately to strongly compressed; apex of anterior tibia without specialized spine dorsally. METASOMA. Petiole distinctly elongate, subcylindrical, moderately to distinctly tapered posteriorly, in lateral view slightly curved, without longitudinal keels, with fine dense pilosity and with scattered semierect bristles; metasoma past petiole often highly campanulate, convex dorsally, entire syntergite with scattered semierect yellow bristles, syntergite smooth and shining, anterior margin of syntergite in lateral view usually elevated and overlapping base of petiole, anterior margin of syntergite loosely attached to petiole; anterior margin of S2 deeply excavate, semicircular, permitting maximum down­flection between petiole and S2, specialized spot on S2 usually located directly in excavation on anterior margin of S2 (usually not easily visible), or rarely remote from it; apex of female metasoma moderately pointed, apical sternite only sparsely hairy.

TYPE SPECIES: Mimopria pentatoma Borgmeier , by present designation.

RECOGNITION AND RELATIONSHIPS: Until now, members of this new genus were classified in Mimopria ( Borgmeier, 1939; Masner, 1959; Loiácono, 1981). The following species of Mimopria are here transferred to Mimopriella (new combinations): M. pentatoma Borgmeier and M. splendens Borgmeier. The two genera can be easily distinguished by cephalic character states (head globular with frons unarmed in Mimopriella vs. head subangular with frons armed in Mimopria ), differences in palpal formula (5– 2 Mimopriella , 3–2 Mimopria ), presence ( Mimopriella ) or absence ( Mimopria ) of metasternal cleft, differences in setae (tapering in Mimopriella , stiff and truncate apically in Mimopria ). Generally members of Mimopriella exhibit finer sculpture and are smaller than members of Mimopria . The two genera are also distinct in shape of metasoma past petiole which is highly convex and campanulate in Mimopriella , and only moderately convex in Mimopria . The verticilate flagellomeres in males of Mimopriella are similar to those in Notoxoides , but distinct from scattered hairs on flagellomeres in Mimopria . Acanthopria males differ by fused A3­A4, and Leucopria males by two whorls of bristles on A4­A13.

ETYMOLOGY: The name Mimopriella is a diminutive of Mimopria , implying the generally smaller and gracile habitus of members as compared with more robust members of Mimopria ; the gender is feminine.

DISTRIBUTION: The distribution of Mimopriella is wider and more ecologically di­ verse than that of Mimopria ; consequently, we examined numerous species (CNCI) from both lowland rainforests and cloud forests of continental South America ( Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Surinam, Venezuela) as well as Central America ( Panama, Costa Rica).

BIOLOGY: Members of Mimopriella are closely associated with various ants. Loiácono (1981) lists ecitonine genera Nomamyrmex and Neivamyrmex . We examined specimens collected from colonies of Labidus sp. (Ecitonini) and one species taken in Costa Rica from a nest of Trachymyrmex opulentus (Mann) (Attini) . Mimopriella appears morphologically less modified than, for example, Mimopria , Notoxoides , etc. However wing alectomy was observed among few individuals; individuals are also frequently collected in light traps.

Mitropria Ogloblin Figure 67

Figures

Figs. 61–69. 61, Leucopria cylindricornis n. sp. female habitus, lateral view; 62, Megalastopria sp. female habitus, lateral view; 63, Mimopriella sp. female petiole, dorsal view; 64, Mimopriella sp. female habitus, lateral view; 65, Mimopria comes Borgmeier female head, dorsal view; 66, M. comes female habitus, lateral view; 67, Mitropria sp. female head, lateral view; 68, Monelata sp. female habitus, dorsal view; 69, Monelata sp. female habitus, dorsal view.