Electroteleia Brues, 1940: 80

Johnson, Norman F., Masner, Lubomír & Musetti, Luciana, 2008, Review of Genera of the Tribe Sparasionini (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea, Scelionidae), and Description of Two New Genera from the New World, American Museum Novitates 3629 (1), pp. 1-24 : 4-6

Electroteleia Brues, 1940: 80 . Type: Electroteleia stigmatica Brues , by monotypy and original designation.

DESCRIPTION: Length 3.5 mm; body moderately robust, with relatively long, strong legs, antenna elongate; macropterous.

Head (figs. 2, 3, 5) transverse in dorsal view; upper frons convex, without transverse shelf (fig. 2); hyperoccipital carina absent; occipital carina well developed, continuous medially, crenulate; lateral ocellus distinctly separated from inner orbit of compound eye, OOL 0.5 times diameter of lateral ocellus; compound eye glabrous (figs. 2, 5); frons broadly convex, without distinct scrobe, covered with widely separated, small punctures; interantennal process rounded, weakly produced, torulus opening laterally from process (fig. 5); submedian carina absent; orbital carina absent; lower frons without fanlike striae; interocular space slightly less than eye height; inner orbits parallel; clypeus semicircular, flat, apically rounded, not divided into anteclypeus and postclypeus; malar sulcus present (fig. 5: ms); gena narrow, weakly convex; labrum not visible; mandible moderate in size, narrowing toward apex, two apical teeth, teeth acute, arrayed transversely across tip of mandible; maxillary palpus at least 4-segmented, segments cylindrical; labial palpus not clearly visible; antenna 12-merous in both sexes; radicle inserted subapically into A1, at distinct angle to longitudinal axis of A1 (fig. 5: r); A1 gradually, moderately widened in apical half; A3 longer than A2; female antenna with apical 7–8 antennomeres forming narrow clava (figs. 1, 6); gustatory sensilla on female antenna ( Isidoro et al., 1996) arranged in longitudinal pairs on apical antennomeres; claval formula A5–A12 1-2-2-2-2-2-2-1; male antenna with tyloids on A4–A8.

Mesosoma (figs. 1, 3, 6) robust, in dorsal view slightly longer than wide, in lateral view deep, convex dorsally; pronotum in dorsal view narrow laterally, anterolateral corners rounded; transverse pronotal carina present (fig. 2: tpc); vertical epomial carina present; horizontal epomial carina present; anterior face of pronotum short, abruptly declivous, barely visible in dorsal view; lateral face of pronotum broadly concave below horizontal epomial carina, facing anterolaterally, with broad scrobe for reception of foreleg; netrion present, broadly fusiform, open ventrally (fig. 2: n); anterior margin of mesoscutum meeting pronotum dorsally; mesoscutum semioval in outline; admedian lines absent; parapsidal lines absent; notauli present, percurrent; skaphion absent; transscutal articulation well developed, coarsely crenulate; scutellum distinctly wider than long, unarmed laterally, convex; axilla broad, costate; metanotum well developed, dorsellum clearly differentiated, narrow, unarmed; dorsal surface of propodeum medially excavated, no setae visible; keels, submedial and lateral plicae of propodeum present; mesopleuron large, prominent; mesopleural depression well developed, reaching pronotum anteriorly (fig. 3: dep); mesopleural carina indicated for short distance anteriorly; sternaulus absent; mesopleural pit present; anterior margin of ventral portion of mesepisternum and acetabular carina not extended forward (fig. 6: ac); mesopleuron flanked posteriorly by vertical line of well-developed foveae; episternal foveae absent; dorsal corner of mesepimeron rounded, without tooth; anteroventral portion of metapleuron separated from lateral face by irregular carina and sculpture, setose; metapleural pit absent; posterior margin of metapleuron lamellate; metapleuron separated from propodeum dorsally by deep groove; propodeum with longitudinal carinae well developed, setose dorsally, posterolateral corners lamellate; legs slender (fig. 1), hind femur weakly incrassate; posterior surface of hind coxa smooth; trochantellus present on all legs; outer surface of fore-, midtibia without spines; tibial spur formula 1-2-2, inner spur longer than outer; tarsal formula 5-5-5; tarsomeres tapering in width apically; pretarsal claws simple; apex of forewing extending to or beyond apex of metasoma, hyaline, marginal cilia very short; R fairly straight, extending through basal 0.6 of length of forewing (fig. 4), interrupted by distinct bulla basad of origin of r-rs, without distinct bristles; R 1 reaching costal margin, extending apically as postmarginal vein beyond apex of r-rs, vein expanded posteriorly and costal cell posterior to R 1 deeply pigmented, forming distinct stigma or thick marginal vein; r-rs (stigmal vein) reflexed apically, arising far beyond bulla in R from marginal vein; short spur of Rs continuing apically beyond stigmal knob; no other tracheate veins in forewing; hind wing with R tracheate only in basal 0.4, not extending to hamuli and costal margin; no strong dark bristles on R; costal margin of hind wing above R with rather dense, strong setae; three hamuli present.

Metasoma (fig. 4) more or less cylindrical, terga slightly flattened, sterna deep, convex; T1–T5 subequal in length, T2 slightly the longest; female with six terga, six sterna visible externally, male with seven terga visible externally; submarginal ridge well developed, defined by narrow laterotergites to form deep submarginal rim; no spiracles visible; base of segment 1 longitudinally costate; suture between segments 1 and 2 basally crenulate; base of segments 2–5 costate, sutures between segments beyond 5 simple; T1 with weakly developed horn; female T6 without median raised field of microsetae or secretion; S1 laterally compressed, clasped between apices of hind coxae, not extending anteriorly between bases of hind coxae; anterior margin of S2 produced anteriorly (fig. 4); no felt fields present on sterna; internal ovipositor characters not visible.

DIAGNOSIS: Distinguished from all other Sparasionini by the well-developed malar sulcus and the spur of Rs extending apically from the apical knob of the stigmal vein (r-rs).

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: Baltic amber.

COMMENTS: The wings of all specimens appear to have small breaks and cracks in the venation, many of which are probably artifacts of preservation. These do not appear to us to be qualitatively different from the structure that we are interpreting as the bulla in R. However, this break is present in all specimens, suggesting that this is the same as the bulla observed in all other genera of Sparasionini .

MATERIAL EXAMINED: Holotype female, ‘‘MUS. COMP. ZOOL . / No. 8149 ♀ Electroteleia stigmatica Brues Holotype BALTIC AMBER’’ ( MCZC). Paratypes: two males, one female, 8150, 5494, 5493 ( MCZC). Other material: 1 male, BST03102 ( GMUG); 1 female ( ZMUC); 7 females, 4 males, OSUC 167294 , 167191 , 167190 , 67897 , 67859 , 167188 , 67854 , 67900 , 67840 , 167295 , 67907 ( OSUC) .