Euaspis strandi Meyer, 1922

Fig. 10E-H

Euaspis (Parevaspis) strandi Meyer, 1922: 236, 239 (♀, ♂, syntypes, male selected as lectotype by Baker 1995). Type locality erroneously noted as “Sikkim”, and Baker (1995) corrected it to be Mindanao, Philippines (ZMB, not examined).

Parevaspis bakeri Vierick, 1924: 745 (♂). Holotype from Kolambugan, Mindanao, Philippines (USNM: United States National Museum, not examined).

Euaspis strandi (Meyer): Baker 1995: 291, 293.

Material examined.

(2♀). Thailand: Phayao (new record), Mueang District, Maeka Subdistrict , Phayao University (19°1'31.45"N, 99°53'24.17"E, alt. 558 m), 1 Jun. 2012, W. Suwannarak et al. (CUNHM: BSRU-AA-4444, 4470) .

Distribution.

China (Yunnan, “Kinpin”: Wu 1962: 168 as Parevaspis bakeri), Thailand (Nakhon Ratchasima, Phayao: new record), Philippines (Mindanao).

Diagnosis.

Euaspis strandi has a reddish metasoma, whereas the rest of the body is black, with a remarkable pale yellow stripe on the mesonotum (i.e., axilla and scutellum with pale yellow marginal band); clypeus with coarse, somewhat irregular punctures (Fig. 10F); punctures on scutellum looser and coarser than on scutum; scutellum large, produced posteriorly with a small shallow median emargination; female apical margin of S6 obtuse, with an enlarged basal platform which contributes ~ 1/2 of the sternal length (Fig. 10H); male was purposed by Viereck (1924) as without mesosomal yellow stripe, apical lamina of gonoforceps with a length of more than twice its width.

Floral associations.

Sindora siamensis Teijsm. ex Miq. ( Fabaceae) is associated with the female collected from Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand (Baker 1995).

Remarks.

In Thailand, Eu. strandi was reported from Sakaerat, Nakhon Ratchasima province in 1995 (Baker 1995). Two females examined from Phayao province were quite large (11.4 mm and 11.5 mm) compared with Eu. polynesia, which varies considerably in size.

The female individual was not observed in this study. Previously, two male specimens had been designated, the first one by Meyer (1922) as syntype together with a female specimen, and the second by Viereck (1924) as Parevaspis strandi . Both specimens were redescribed and discussed by Baker (1995), and the locality of Meyer’s syntype was corrected and the male was selected to be a lectotype. Therefore, the validity of the female identity is still ambiguous, also mentioned in Baker (1995): syntypes were mislabeled, collected without any notes to confirm that they come from the same locality, and are doubtfully paired since the notable character does not match, i.e., an absence of the marginal mark on scutellum and axilla, which is noticeable in the female.