Opius macrocornis Fischer

Wharton, Robert, Daniels, Sophia, Shirley, Xanthe & Restuccia, Danielle, 2013, An opiine Braconidae (Hymenoptera) reared from Richardiidae (Diptera) and recognition of a new species group of Opius s. l., ZooKeys 289, pp. 65-101 : 84

Opius macrocornis Fischer Fig. 26

Opius macrocornis Fischer, 1965b: 298-300. Holotype male in AEIC (examined).

Opius macrocornis : Fischer 1965d: 419 (key); Fischer 1969: 162-163 (key); Fischer 1971: 84 (catalog).

Opius (Pendopius) macrocornis : Fischer 1977: 714-715, 727-728 (key, redescription); Fischer 1979b: 484-486, 495 (key); Yu et al. 2005, 2012 (electronic catalogs).

Type locality.

Peru, Quincemil, near Marcapata, 750 m.

Type material.

Holotype. Male (AEIC), first label, first line: Quincemil, Perú second line: 750 m nr. Marcapata third line: Nov. 10-15, 1962 fourth line: Luis Peña Sept.

Diagnosis.

Face very faintly punctate, otherwise smooth, polished throughout. Eye in lateral view 2.4-2.6 × longer than temple; temples in dorsal view not or only weakly receding. Male antenna with 45 flagellomeres; setae on basal flagellomeres thick, dark. Mesoscutum with weak declivity; supramarginal carina absent or apparently so. Propodeum smooth, polished with shallow median trough anteriorly continuous with broader, weakly defined areola posteriorly. Fore wing 3RSa straight, about 1.6 × longer than 2RS; m-cu postfurcal. T1 evenly curving into basal pit anteriorly, not distinctly declivitous, pit well-defined, delimited posterior-medially; surface smooth, polished; dorsal carinae parallel-sided for most of their length, distinctly converging near posterior margin, not sinuate, not transversely carinate between dorsal carinae. T2+T3 smooth, polished. Head, body, hind coxa and femur pale orange; antenna without pale subapical ring; wing darkly infumate.

Remarks.

This species is known only from the male holotype and is very similar to Opius nimifactus , as noted by Fischer (1979b). Both species are characterized by greatly reduced propodeal sculpture (Figs 25-26), relatively smooth T1, and absence of any shagreening on T2. T1 anteriorly is more gradually sloping in Opius macrocornis , and Opius macrocornis is more uniformly pale orange: lacking the black tegula and dark margins of the mesoscutum that characterize Opius nimifactus . There is a patch of sculpture between the notaulus and the anterior-lateral margin of the mesoscutum in Opius nimifactus but this area is largely smooth in Opius macrocornis . The mesoscutum is also weakly declivitous in Opius macrocornis but flatter in Opius nimifactus . Fischer (1979b) provides additional comparison of the two species. Both of these species were placed in the subgenus Pendopius by Fischer (1977, 1979b) because of the absence of sculpture on T2. The shagreened sculpture on the metasoma appears to vary intraspecifically in opiines when there is sufficient material for comparison, and is often extremely weak in some of the species of the ingenticornis species group. We therefore do not consider the sculpture pattern alone to be adequate for characterizing subgenera or species groups, and treat it as variably present or absent in the ingenticornis species group. Both Opius macrocornis and Opius nimifactus fall within our concept of the ingenticornis species group, resembling species with relatively reduced sculpture and darker, thicker flagellar setae such as Opius curiosicornis .