Enicospilus Stephens, 1835

Gadallah, Neveen S., Soliman, Ahmed M., Rousse, Pascal & Al Dhafer, Hathal M., 2017, The genus Enicospilus Stephens, 1835 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Ophioninae) in Saudi Arabia, with twelve new species records and the description of five new species, European Journal of Taxonomy 365, pp. 1-69: 6-9

publication ID

https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.365

publication LSID

lsid:zoobank.org:pub:11B4AFCD-23A0-4170-BB02-9AD628C16925

DOI

http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3852634

persistent identifier

http://treatment.plazi.org/id/03A02166-FFF3-006B-FDFB-F882FAC8FB12

treatment provided by

Carolina

scientific name

Enicospilus Stephens, 1835
status

 

Genus Enicospilus Stephens, 1835  

A total of 498 specimens of Enicospilus   representing 23 species were collected and identified with the keys of Gauld & Mitchell (1978) and Rousse & van Noort (2014). Some uncertain identifications were confirmed with the help of Gavin Broad (NHMUK). All our sequences and related pictures were uploaded to the BOLD database, and the identification numbers are detailed in the relevant descriptions (see below). The DNA extraction was unsuccessful for E. senescens ( Tosquinet, 1896)   and not enough material was available at the moment of extraction of E. bicoloratus Cameron, 1912   , E. perlatus   , E. psammus   , Enicospilus   sp. 1 and sp. 2. Six of the 17 COI barcodes significantly matched (> 97% similarity) with databased sequences, all of which were registered as unidentified Enicospilus   spp. in the BOLD database. These were the barcodes extracted from specimens morphologically identified as E. capensis   , E. grandiflavus Townes & Townes, 1973   , E. oculator   , E. pacificus ( Holmgren, 1868)   , E. pallidus ( Taschenberg, 1875)   and E. shadaensis   sp. nov.

Five new species are described herein: E. arabicus Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov., E. mirabilis Soliman & Gadallah   sp. nov., E. pseudoculator Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov., E. shadaensis Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov. and E. splendidus Rousse, Soliman & Gadallah   sp. nov. In addition, this paper documents twelve species newly recorded from Saudi Arabia. Most of the reported species are typical of the Afrotropical region rather than the Palaearctic region, especially those collected from Al Baha and Asir provinces (southwestern Saudi Arabia). Of the Saudi species of Enicospilus   , 86.9% are Afrotropical, 8.7% are Palaearctic and 13% are both ( E. capensis   , E. psammus   , E. pseudoculator   sp. nov.) ( Table 1 View Table 1 ). Interestingly, two species reported from Yemen ( E. justus   and E. expeditus   ) ( Gauld & Mitchell 1978) were not collected in the present study from South Western Saudi Arabia. An explanatory hypothesis might be that these two species were collected only in the high mountains in Yemen. As a consequence, we can not ascertain their presence in Saudi Arabia and did not include them in the key.

Key to the species of Enicospilus   in Saudi Arabia

1. Disco-submarginal cell of fore wing without any alar sclerites ( Figs 25C View Fig , 27B View Fig ) ............................ 2 – Disco-submarginal cell of fore wing with one or more alar sclerites ............................................... 3

2. Rs+2 r strongly   sinuate proximally, fenestra relatively small, AI> 1 ( Fig. 27B View Fig ); antenna with more than 65 flagellomeres ........................................................................ E. senescens ( Tosquinet, 1896)  

– Rs+2 r straighter   proximally ( Fig. 25C View Fig ), fenestra larger, AI <1; antenna with fewer than 65 flagellomeres .................................................................................. E. oweni Gauld & Mitchell, 1976  

3. Mesosoma interspersed with ivory markings ( Figs 3H View Fig , 4B, 4G View Fig , 5B, 5C View Fig ); antenna relatively short with fewer than 55 flagellomeres ...................................................................................................... 4

– Mesosoma uniformly coloured, without ivory markings; antenna variable, usually with more than 55 flagellomeres ..................................................................................................................................... 8

4. Fore wing with one proximal sclerite, central sclerite totally absent ( Figs 26C View Fig , 27C View Fig , 28A View Fig ) ........... 5

– Fore wing with one proximal and one central sclerite ( Figs 24B View Fig , 25A View Fig ) ........................................... 7

5. Proximal sclerite very weakly sclerotized ( Fig. 28A View Fig ); outer mid tibial spur very short, less than 0.4 × as long as inner spur ( Fig. 33C View Fig )....................... E. splendidus Rousse, Soliman & Gadallah   sp. nov.

– Proximal sclerite fully sclerotized ( Figs 26C View Fig , 27C View Fig ); outer mid tibial spur usually longer ............... 6

6. Body dark reddish brown ( Fig. 5B View Fig ); proximal sclerite dark brown to black, triangular, CI> 0.2 ( Fig. 27C View Fig ); face narrow, 1.5 × higher than wide ( Fig. 8F View Fig ); moderately large species (B> 27, F> 12) ............................................................................ E. shadaensis Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov.

– Body lighter orange to brown ( Fig. 4G View Fig ); proximal sclerite bright red and dome-shaped, CI <0.2 ( Fig. 26C View Fig ); face subquadrate, 1.1 × higher than wide ( Fig. 8C View Fig ); smaller species (B <19, F <12) ...................................................................... E. pseudoculator Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov.

7. Metasoma interspersed with ivory markings ( Fig. 3H View Fig ); central sclerite uniformly sclerotized ( Fig. 24B View Fig ); median flagellomeres stout (Fl20 <1.7) ........ E. mirabilis Soliman & Gadallah   sp. nov.

– Metasoma without ivory markings ( Fig. 4B View Fig ); central sclerite weakly sclerotized proximally ( Fig. 25A View Fig ); median flagellomeres more slender (Fl20> 1.7) ...................... E. oculator Seyrig, 1935  

8. Proximal sclerite acutely arrow-shaped, central sclerite very weakly sclerotized ( Fig. 25B View Fig ); moderately to very large species (B 16–30, F 14–20) .................... E. odax Gauld & Mitchell, 1978  

– Proximal sclerite obviously different, central sclerite present or absent; usually smaller species ... 9

9. Central sclerite totally absent, without even a faint trace ( Figs 22A, 22C View Fig , 23C View Fig , 24A View Fig ) .................. 10

– Central sclerite present (e.g., Figs 22B View Fig , 23B View Fig , 26A, 26B View Fig , 28C View Fig ) though sometimes weakly sclerotized (e.g., Figs 23A View Fig , 24C View Fig , 28C View Fig ) .............................................................................................................. 13

10. Pale yellow species ( Figs 3A, 3G View Fig ) ...................................................................................................11

– Darker yellowish-orange species ( Figs 3C, 3E View Fig ) ............................................................................. 12

11. Proximal sclerite obtusely angled without distal extension, ICI> 0.6, CI <0.3 ( Fig. 24A View Fig ); propodeum coarsely and concentrically striate ( Fig. 19A View Fig ); clypeus flat in profile; metasoma darkened dorsally and apically ( Fig. 3G View Fig ); large species (B> 25, F> 15) ....................................................................... ........................................................................................... E. grandiflavus Townes & Townes, 1973  

– Proximal sclerite comma-shaped with very long distal extension, ICI <0.6, CI> 0.3 ( Fig. 22A View Fig ); integument is almost longitudinally striate just behind the basal transverse carina of propodeum ( Fig. 18A View Fig ); clypeus very strongly convex in profile ( Fig. 10A View Fig ); metasoma uniformly yellow without any dark markings ( Fig. 3A View Fig ); smaller species (B <25, F <15) ......................................................... ........................................................................................... E. arabicus Gadallah & Soliman   sp. nov.

12. Antenna moderately long with more than 50 flagellomeres, median ones strongly elongate (Fl20> 2); metapleuron weakly convex, without punctures, and longitudinally striate ................................. ................................................................................................................ E. dubius ( Tosquinet, 1896)  

– Antenna short with fewer than 50 flagellomeres, median ones stout (Fl20 <2); metapleuron strongly convex, puncto-striate and longitudinally striate .................................... E. brevicornis ( Masi, 1939)  

13. Central sclerite subdivided and U-shaped ( Fig. 23B View Fig ) ................................. E. divisus ( Seyrig, 1935)  

– Central sclerite not elongate, obviously different ........................................................................... 14

14. Proximal sclerite rather narrow, comma-shaped with very long distal extension, central sclerite uniformly sclerotized ( Fig. 26A View Fig ) ....................................................... E. pacificus ( Holmgren, 1868)  

– Proximal sclerite different, more or less triangular sometimes with a faint distal extension (e.g., Figs 22B View Fig , 23A View Fig , 26B View Fig , 28C View Fig ); central sclerite sometimes weakly sclerotized (e.g., Figs 23A View Fig , 24C View Fig , 28C View Fig ) ................................................................................................................................................ 15

15. Central sclerite crescent-shaped, weakly sclerotized proximally, and large with maximal length larger than distance to Rs+2r ( Fig. 26B View Fig ); pale yellow species ( Fig. 4F View Fig ) ............................................ .......................................................................................................... E. pallidus ( Taschenberg, 1875)  

– Central sclerite smaller and more or less circular (e.g., Figs 22B View Fig , 23A View Fig , 28B View Fig ), sometimes hardly sclerotized proximally and/or distinctly elongate ( Figs 24C View Fig , 27A View Fig ) but never crescent-shaped; usually darker yellowish-orange species ..................................................................................................... 16

16. Very small species (F 6–9), with characteristic alar sclerites ( Fig. 34A View Fig ) ........................................... .................................................................................................. E. psammus Gauld & Mitchell, 1978  

– Larger species (F nearly always> 10), with different alar sclerites ............................................... 17

17. Outer mid (and sometimes hind) tibial spur(s) very short, less than 0.4 × as long as inner spur(s) ( Figs 33A View Fig ); central sclerite longitudinal and weakly sclerotized ( Fig. 24C View Fig ) ...................................... ................................................................................................................ E. nervellator Aubert, 1966  

– Outer mid and hind tibial spurs longer; central sclerite variable .................................................... 18

18. Mandible with a long piliferous furrow from dorsal base to between teeth ( Fig. 10D View Fig ) ................. 19

– Mandible without such a distinct piliferous furrow (e.g., Fig. 13B View Fig ) .............................................. 20

19. Mandible with upper tooth less than twice the length of lower tooth ( Fig. 6B View Fig ), bare or sparsely setose on outer margin ( Fig. 6B View Fig ); central sclerite small, circular, and uniformly sclerotized ( Fig. 22B View Fig ) ............................................................................................ E. bicoloratus Cameron, 1912  

– Mandible with upper tooth more than twice the length of lower tooth ( Fig. 6D View Fig ), with dense setae on outer margin ( Figs 6D View Fig , 10D View Fig ); central sclerite not uniformly sclerotized ( Fig. 23A View Fig ) .......................... .............................................................................................................. E. capensis ( Thunberg, 1822)  

20. Central sclerite small, shortly elongate and totally translucent ( Fig. 34B View Fig ); hind wing with Cu & cu-a (nervellus) intercepted around middle (NI 1.0–1.2) .............................. E. perlatus Shestakov, 1926  

– Central sclerite circular to distinctly elongate, pigmented at least distally ( Figs 27A View Fig , 28 View Fig B–C); hind wing with Cu & cu-a (nervellus) intercepted far below middle (NI> 1.6) .................................... 21

21. Central sclerite moderately to very long and curved toward base of wing, proximal sclerite dark brown ( Fig. 27A View Fig ) .................................................................................. E. rundiensis Bischoff, 1915  

– Central sclerite more or less circular, proximal sclerite lighter ( Figs 28 View Fig B–C) ............................... 22

22. Central sclerite weakly sclerotized proximally ( Fig. 28C View Fig ); mesopleuron closely punctate without longitudinal striations ( Fig. 17C View Fig ) ............................................................................ Enicospilus   sp. 1

– Central sclerite fully sclerotized ( Fig. 28B View Fig ); mesopleuron puncto-striate........................................... .............................................................................. Enicospilus   sp. 2 cf. bicoloratus Cameron, 1912