Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya , 1952

Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan & Koutsoukos, Evangelos, 2023, Perilampus neglectus and other neglected species: new records of Palaearctic Perilampidae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea), with a key to European species of Perilampus, Journal of Hymenoptera Research 96, pp. 57-99 : 57

Perilampus noemi Nikol'skaya, 1952

Fig. 14

Perilampus noemi Nikol’skaya, 1952: 194.

Diagnosis.

Head and metasoma black; mesosoma dorsally black, with distinct violet, bronze or/and golden green reflections; female flagellum brownish-black, clava somewhat lighter. Body size: 1.75-3.00 mm. Head shape in frontal view (Fig. 14A, B ) much wider than high. Head in lateral view not unusually long, without distinct sulcus separating posterior eye margin from temple. Clypeal margin (Fig. 14A, B ) slightly convex. Supraclypeal area (Fig. 14A, B ) slightly transverse (less than 1.5 × as wide as high), sides slightly or not defined; in male without oval lateral impressions. Malar sulcus versus anterior margin of malar depression shorter. Frontal keels (Fig. 14A, B ) absent. Face between scrobes and eye (Fig. 14A, B ) smooth. Face between clypeus and eye (Fig. 14A, B ) smooth. Lateral ocellus large (OOL less than twice the largest ocellar diameter). Funicular segments in female (Fig. 14A ): most segments quadrate to transverse. Male scape (Fig. 14B ) slightly widened distally, ventral pores on about half scape length. Mesosoma (Fig. 14C ) not narrow (less than 1.4 × as long as wide). Mesoscutum sculpture (Fig. 14C ) without smooth median tubercle; interspaces smaller than punctures, rugose. Scutellum hind margin (Fig. 14C ) without a double carina, with large bilobed protruding projection. Prepectus (Fig. 14D ) wide, dorsal margin longer than pronotal collar; well defined anteriorly (i.e. suture with pronotum very distinct); all sides with punctures (anterior side with much smaller punctures or partly interrupted), leaving just a very small smooth central area.

Material examined.

Greece: 1♀, " Attiki, Salamina, Agios Lavrendios , 37.962996°N, 23.514664°E, v.2020, By Hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, " Attiki, Salamina, Agios Lavrendios, 37.962996°N, 23.514664°E, vii.2020, By Hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, 3♂♂, " Attiki, Salamina, Ano Vasilika, 37.98822°N, 23.49196°E, ix.2020, By hand, Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♀, 1♂, " Attiki, Salamina, Patris hill, 37.970°N, 23.489°E, x.2020, By hand Leg. Koutsoukos, V." (MICO); 1♂ " Greece / Crete; 35.094319°N, 24.706687° E; 18.10.2022 on Urginea maritima", " E. Klimsa leg." . Mongolia: 1♀ " Mongolia, Gobi Altaj aimak, Zachuj Gobi, 10 km N von Chatan chajrchan Gebirge , 1150 m, Exp. Dr. Z. Kaszab, 1966", "Nr. 591, 27.VI.1966 ", "Perilampus Perilampus Nik. ♀ Bouček det. 1982" (NHMUK); 1♂ " Mongolia: Bajanchongor aimak, Cagan Bogd ul, zw. Talyn bilgech bulag und Caganbulag, 25 km WSW v. Quelle, 1450 m, Exp. Dr. Z. Kaszab, 1966", "Nr. 842, 24.VI.1967 ", "Perilampus Perilampus Nik. ♂ Bouček det. 1982", “NHMUK014583387” (NHMUK) .

Hosts.

Unknown.

Distribution.

Mongolia and Tadzhikistan, the latter cited by Bouček (1983). New species to Europe.

Comments.

In Bouček’s key (1956) specimens of P. noemi go to couplet 17 ( P. laevifrons and P. neglectus ). However, P. noemi differs from both these species mainly in the shape and sculpture of the prepectus (Fig. 14D ) and body colour (Fig. 14 ). Additionally, from P. laevifrons (Fig. 8 ) it differs mainly in having the upper face smooth and the clypeal margin slightly convex (Fig. 14A, B ), while from P. neglectus (Fig. 12 ) in having the posterior margin of scutellum with a larger bilobed protruding projection (Fig. 14C ). According to Darling and Yoo (2021), females of P. noemi are undistinguishable from females of P. khor Yoo & Darling, 2021 (described from the United Arab Emirates), while the males of the two species can be separated based on several features, the structure of the scape being the most striking ( Darling and Yoo 2021: 114). However, the scape of the NHMUK014583387 male (identified as P. noemi by Bouček, see Material examined) is much more similar to the scape of the P. khor male ( Darling and Yoo 2021: fig. 4J, K) than the scape of the ROME188145 male ( Darling and Yoo 2021: fig. 5D, also identified as P. noemi ), although in NHMUK014583387 the ventral pores occupy a rather larger portion of the scape as compared to those in P. khor . Concerning scape morphology, all males from Greece (Fig. 14B ) are similar to NHMUK014583387 and different from ROME188145. One possibility is that ROME188145 is in fact not P. noemi , as also indicated by differences from the P. noemi female: the arrangement of the ocelli, the shape of the clypeal margin, and the relative dimensions of the clypeal and supraclypeal areas. However, Nikols’kaya’s original material of P. noemi as well as additional specimens should be examined before assessing the variability of the involved species and taking any taxonomic decisions.

Figures

Figure 8. Perilampus laevifrons A female, head in frontal view B male, head in frontal view C male, head and mesosoma, dorsal view D male, prepectus.

Figure 12. Perilampus neglectus A female, head in frontal view B male, head in frontal view C female paratype, head and mesosoma, dorsal view D female, prepectus.

Figure 14. Perilampus noemi A female, head in frontal view B male, head in frontal view C female, head and mesosoma, dorsal view D female, prepectus.