Perilampus ruficornis (Fabricius, 1793)

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 ruficornis (Fabricius, 1793)

Fig. 16

Cynips ruficornis Fabricius, 1793: 103.

Diplolepis violacea Fabricius, 1804: 149. Synonymy by Dalla Torre (1898: 356).

Perilampus nigricornis Walker, 1833: 141. Synonymy by Dalla Torre (1898: 356).

Perilampus scaber Nikol’skaya, 1952: 194. Synonymy by Bouček (1983: 112).

Diagnosis.

Head blue, with slight green reflections; mesosoma except propodeum dorsally dark green, with slight golden bronze reflections; propodeum and metasoma blue with violet reflections; female flagellum orange, claval apex dark. Body size: 3.0-3.8 mm. Head shape in frontal view (Fig. 16A, B ) much wider than high. Head in lateral view not unusually long, without distinct sulcus separating posterior eye margin from temple. Clypeal margin (Fig. 16A, B ) truncate. Supraclypeal area (Fig. 16A, B ) slightly transverse (less than 1.5 × as wide as high), sides slightly defined; in males without oval lateral impressions. Malar sulcus versus anterior margin of malar depression shorter. Frontal keels (Fig. 16A, B ) well developed. Face between scrobes and eye (Fig. 16A, B ) smooth. Face between clypeus and eye (Fig. 16A, B ) smooth. Lateral ocellus small (OOL at least twice the largest ocellar diameter). Funicular segments in female (Fig. 16A ): most segments quadrate to transverse. Male scape (Fig. 16B ) slightly widened distally; ventral pores on about half scape length. Mesosoma (Fig. 16C ) not narrow (less than 1.4 × as long as wide). Mesoscutum sculpture (Fig. 16C ) without smooth median tubercle; interspaces smaller than punctures, rugose. Scutellum hind margin (Fig. 16C ) without a double carina, without any protruding projection. Prepectus (Fig. 16D ) wide, dorsal margin longer than pronotal collar; well defined anteriorly (i.e. suture with pronotum very distinct); anterior margin without punctures.

Material examined.

France: 1♂, " France, Vaucluse, Mt. Ventoux , III. 1981. P. du Merle", "ex Lypha dubia in T. viridana", " ♂ Peril. ruficornis (F.), Z. Bouček det. 1984" (NHMUK) . Greece: 1♀, " Kerkini Lake nr. Promahonah, Procom site, Malaise tr. 21-27.IV.2008, 41°22'38.1"N, 23°21'58.8"E, Leg. Gordon Ramel " (MICO); 2♂♂, " Kerkini Lake N Park, Kerkini Mts , nr. Ramna st. , YPT, temp. forest nr. stream, 640 m, 41°17'44"N, 23°11'37"E, 08.IV.2010, Leg. Gordon Ramel" (MICO) . South Korea: 1♀, "S. Korea Gyeongido Gapyeong-gun Seo-myeon Magok-I / 3 Mal. tr. in forest. area, 37°42.97'N, 127°35.45'E, 4.V-6.VI.2006 Tripotin rec." (MICO) . Turkey: 1♀, " Turkey, Artvin. Above Artvin. 900 m., 6.vi.1962, Guichard & Harvey. B.M. 1962-299", " ♀ Perilampus Perilampus (F.), Z. Bouček det. 1971" (NHMUK) .

Hosts.

Associated with Glossinidae ( Diptera ), Crabronidae , Cynipidae ( Hymenoptera ), Geometridae , Lasiocampidae , Lymantriidae , Noctuidae , Pyralidae , Tortricidae ( Lepidoptera ); hyperparasitoid of Tachinidae ( Diptera ), Braconidae , Ichneumonidae ( Hymenoptera ).

Distribution.

Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Netherlands, Nigeria, Peoples’ Republic of China, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America. New species to Greece, South Korea and Turkey.

Comments.

Very similar to P. eximius . Except for body colour, the separation characters given by Nikol’skaya (1952), Steffan (1952) and Bouček (1956) are difficult to interpret without comparative material. In the examined specimens the pronotal collar is considerably shorter medially than laterally (as stated for P. eximius ), but the scutellum is hardly convex in the female (as in P. ruficornis ), but clearly convex in the male (as in P. eximius ). Because the body colour (Fig. 16 ) better matches P. ruficornis than P. eximius and the posterior margin of the scutellum has a very slight emargination (as stated by Nikol’skaya for P. ruficornis ) we decided in the favour of the latter species; however, more material should be examined before deciding if these are meaningful differences to separate the two species. The comparative material from NHMUK identified by Z. Bouček is very similar to our specimens, but unfortunately we could not find any specimens of P. eximius in NHMUK.

Figures

Figure 16. Perilampus ruficornis A female, head in frontal view B male, head in frontal view C female, head and mesosoma, dorsal view D female, prepectus.