Ecrizotes hofferi ( Bouček, 1964 ) Mitroiu & Andriescu & Manic, 2024

Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan, Andriescu, Ionel & Manic, Gheorghe, 2024, The Afrotropical and West-Palaearctic species of Ecrizotes Förster (Hymenoptera: Pirenidae), European Journal of Taxonomy 970, pp. 1-37 : 17

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.5852/ejt.2024.970.2745
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:34546280-853E-466C-A7EB-B7C10B5A2A02
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03FE87A8-FFF9-FF83-FDFE-FE29FD8207DA
treatment provided by	Plazi
scientific name	Ecrizotes hofferi ( Bouček, 1964 )
status	comb. nov.

Treatment

Ecrizotes hofferi ( Bouček, 1964) comb. nov.

Fig. 5 View Fig

Spathopus hofferi Bouček, 1964: 257–258 View in CoL ; holotype ♀, NMPC, not examined.

Diagnosis

Female

All funiculars wider than long; Fu3 not smaller than either Fu2 or Fu4 ( Fig. 5E View Fig ); ventral margin of clypeus strongly convex ( Fig. 5D View Fig ); head in frontal view with gena buccate ( Fig. 5C View Fig ); hind tibia length about 5× width; gaster about equal to combined length of head and mesosoma, moderately compressed laterally ( Fig. 5A View Fig ); tip of hypopygium not incised (cf. Fig. 7I View Fig ); ovipositor sheath length about 0.4× length of hind tibia.

Male

All tibiae strongly inflated, hind tibia length about 2.9 × width ( Fig. 5B View Fig ). Funicular segments wider than long ( Fig. 5F View Fig ). Fore wing with upper side of basal cell sparsely and more or less uniformly setose. See also Taxonomic comments below.

Material examined

FRANCE • 1 ♀; “ Lac de Tigne / Savoie, France / 9.8.1965. Comellini // Spathopus hofferi Bčk. / det. Z. Bouček, 1976”; NMPC .

SPAIN • 1 ♂; “Spain (Madrid): Cercedilla / 8.vii.74. Z. Bouček // ♂ Spathopus? hofferi Bčk. / det. Z. Bouček, 1975”; NMPC .

Distribution

Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden ( UCD Community 2023). France (new record).

Hosts

Unknown. According to Bouček (1964: 258), the species might be a parasitoid of Cecidomyiidae Newman, 1835 ( Diptera ).

Taxonomic comments

The male specimen from Spain (see above, Fig. 5B, F View Fig ) identified by Bouček as “ ? hofferi ” (see Material examined) remains questionable regarding its species-level identification as it generally fits the description of E. hofferi male except for the antenna. In this specimen, the right antenna is broken beyond the pedicel, while the left antenna is broken beyond Fu4. Nevertheless, the first funicular segments are quite different from Bouček’s drawing ( Bouček 1964: 256, fig. 4); the antenna drawn by Bouček (apparently belonging to the male allotype collected in Russia) is very curious in having a compact flagellum, with only four large segments before a 3-segmented clava, with an unusually long Fu4; this is rather odd as antennae of males never have fewer funicular segments than the antennae of females. In the redescription of Spathopus, Bouček (1964) states that the antennal formula is 11053 in females and 11143 or 11233 in males, the latter formula probably relying on Ashmead’s assertion that the male antenna is “10-jointed, with one or two ring-joints” ( Ashmead 1904). However, in the Spanish male specimen listed above, the flagellum is not compact and the first four funicular segments are more or less equally-sized ( Fig. 5F View Fig ); this is the same as seen in the male specimens of E. brevicauda sp. nov. ( Fig. 2F View Fig ) and E. longicauda sp. nov. ( Fig. 7F View Fig ) described herein, as well as with the male of E. filicornis ( Fig. 4F View Fig ). In all these species, the male antennal formula is 11062, with funiculars never compact and with a 2-segmented clava. The Russian specimen examined by Bouček has inflated tibiae and was rightfully identified as a male, but we consider the possibility that it could have been a gynandromorph male, with abnormal antennae.