Megaprosternum neolongiceps Azevedo, 2018

Colombo, Wesley D. & Azevedo, Celso O., 2024, Revision of the strongly flattened Megaprosternum Azevedo (Hymenoptera, Bethylidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 958 (1), pp. 1-47 : 27-28

Megaprosternum neolongiceps Azevedo, 2018

Megaprosternum longiceps Azevedo, 2006: 38–40 [nec A. longiceps Ashmead, 1900 ] [pre-occupied, not available name].

Megaprosternum neolongiceps Azevedo et al., 2018: 235 [replacement name].

Megaprosternum longiceps – Gupta et al. 2017: 89.

Differential diagnosis

The males of this species differ from those of the other species by having the head about 1.6× as long as wide, rectangular and with sides subparallel, in dorsal view, the median clypeal lobe with lateral carinae parallel posteriorly, the ocelli nearly touching one another, the propodeal spiracle on lateral surface of the metapectal-propodeal complex, the hypopygium with spiculum narrowing apicad, and the aedeagal apex aligned to cuspis apex.

Material examined

Holotype

FIJI – Viti Levu • ♂; “Viti Levu, Nandaravatu, Microwave St[atio]n , 1100 m, 16–23.VIII.[19]78, Malaise trap, S. & J. Peck col.”; ANIC.

Redescription

Male

MEASUREMENTS (mm). Body length 3.33; LH 0.65; WH 0.41; WF 0.20; WOT 0.10; surface of median clypeal lobe 0.17; HE 0.25; OOL 0.30; LFW 2.23.

COLOR. Head, mesosoma and metasoma dark castaneous.

HEAD. Oval, in lateral view; sides converging posterad, in dorsal view; malar space 0.1× HE; median clypeal lobe straight, as long as lateral ones, with pair of lateral carinae, parallel posteriorly, lobe delimitation distinct; mandible with three apical teeth; antenna with 11 flagellomeres, pedicel as long as flagellomere I; eye weakly setose, contour not protruding; frons coriaceous; ocellar triangle with anterior angle acute, postocellar line shorter than DAO.

MESOSOMA. Pronotal flange polished, with posterior margin at most 1.5× as wide as anterior one; dorsal pronotal area coriaceous, posterior margin almost straight; probasisternum with anterior margin strongly angulated, posterior margin almost straight; epicnemium with anterior margin weakly incurved; mesoscutum longer than mesoscutellum medially; parapsidal signum absent; transscutal fissure conspicuous; mesoscuto-scutellar suture absent; mesopleuron with mesepimeral lobe not evident, anterior mesopleural fovea absent, mesopleural epicoxal lobe not evident, mesopleural pit present, upper mesopleural fovea absent; metapectal-propodeal disc longer than wide medially, with evident constriction at propodeal spiracle; transverse anterior carina absent; lateral marginal carina absent; paraspiracular sulcus absent; paraspiracular carina absent; metapostnotal median carina absent; propodeal spiracle circular, on lateral surface of the metapectal-propodeal complex; forewing with prestigmal abscissa of radial 1 subrectangular, 3.0× as long as pterostigma, 2.0 ×as wide as Sc+R vein, prestigmal flexion line present, pterostigma small and circular; hind wing with three non-equidistant distal hamuli.

METASOMA. Second abdominal spiracle circular; abdominal tergum narrowing apicad; hypopygium with spiculum narrowing apicad, hypopygeal anterolateral apodeme present, hypopygeal posterior margin weakly outcurved. Genitalia with harpe 2.5× as long as gonostipes; digitus with posterior margin denticulate; aedeagal apex aligned to cuspis apex.

Female

Unknown.

Remarks

This species was initially described based only on a single male specimen collected in Viti Levu, Fiji. Subsequently, Gupta et al. (2017) provided a taxonomic key and comparisons between the females of M. cleonarovorum and apterous females of M. longiceps , claiming that this species was described based on both males and females. This assertion was reiterated by Azevedo & van Noort (2018). However, the apterous female mentioned by the authors belongs to the species M. pentagonal , and the authors made a mistake.

Host

Unknown.

Distribution

Fiji ( Viti Levu).