Cleruchoides mirus (Girault), comb. n.

(Figs 5a–b)

Erythmelus mirus Girault, 1938: 390 . Holotype in QMB. Type locality: Australia, Queensland, Indooroopilly. Erythmelus mirus: Dahms, 1984: 827 (holotype data); Lin et al., 2007: 32 (list).

The holotype is in poor condition (Fig. 5b), under its own coverslip fragment, together with another specimen that belongs to another species of Erythmelus Enock under a second coverslip fragment on a messily labelled slide, as shown in Fig. 5a.

Lin et al. (2007) listed E. mirus under Erythmelus but noted that it was incorrectly placed generically. They failed to associate it with any described genus, including their own new genus Cleruchoide s. Re-examination of the holotype of E. mirus allows us to place it correctly in Cleruchoides, which is quite similar to Cleruchus but differs from Erythmelus in several features, notably: hypopygium inconspicuous, not extending to apex of gaster (versus conspicuous, extending to apex of gaster), fore wing with posterior margin distinctly lobed behind venation (versus lobe much less distinct), parastigma–stigmal vein with posterior margin strongly sinuate, such that the parastigma and stigmal vein are much wider than the narrow marginal vein (versus venation with posterior margin straight), venation with 2 apical macrochaetae (versus 1 apical macrochaeta), mandible clearly developed with 1 or 2 small apical teeth and as long as maxilla (Fig. 6a) (versus mandible a minute stub, much shorter than elongate maxilla), and tentorium oval (Fig. 5a), with narrowest point—the junction between anterior and posterior arms—close to occiput (versus tentorium almost X-shaped, with narrowest point midway between arms), and gena in lateral view present and distinguishable (versus absent in Erythmelus).

Diagnosis. In C. mirus, fore wing wider, about 4.9× as long as wide (6.0× in C. noackae), with fewer discal microtrichia in one row at wing apex (a few more, and more scattered, microtrichia in C. noackae), and first distal macrochaeta about midway between proximal macrochaeta and second distal macrochaeta (first distal macrochaeta much closer to second distal macrochaeta than to proximal macrochaeta in C. noackae). The fore wing and female antenna of C. noackae are illustrated in Lin et al. (2007, figs 268, 269).

Redescription (holotype). Body length about 545 (head detached and mounted face up so its length estimated). Color fairly uniform brown (Fig. 5b) with leg joints slightly lighter (if the subantennal grooves are black, as in C. noackae, there is no longer any indication of this on the holotype of C. mirus).

Holotype measurements. Body length, 545; ovipositor, 130. Antenna (Fig. 6a) (number of mps in parentheses): scape, 121:37; pedicel, 45:26; F1, 16:17; F2, 30:17; F3, 29:17; F4, 27:20; F5, 28:25(1); F6, 33:31(2); clava, 121:37(6). Fore wing, 477:98, 4.87× as long as wide; longest marginal setae, 153, venation length, 180; wing surface with one submedian longitudinal row of about 9–12 (counted on both fore wings) microtrichia and 2 isolated microtrichia more posteriorly. Hind wing, 466:32; longest marginal setae, 120. Ovipositor 0.8× length of metatibia (160).

Comments. Several publications on C. noackae have appeared over the past few years because of its potential importance as a biological control agent of T. peregrinus (Nadel & Noack 2012; Nadel et al. 2012; Mutitu et al. 2013; de Souza et al. 2016). If the host of C. mirus is discovered it may also be potentially useful as a biocontrol agent, assuming it also parasitizes a pest species of Thaumastocoridae .