Rhoptromeris, Forster, 1869

Costa Baião, Guilherme & Forshage, Mattias, 2018, Revision of the West Palaearctic species of Rhoptromeris Förster, 1869 (Hymenoptera: Figitidae: Eucoilinae), Journal of Natural History (J. Nat. Hist.) 52 (17 - 20), pp. 1201-1224 : 1204-1208

publication ID	https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00222933.2018.1447154
publication LSID	lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8164332C-93E2-4E3F-A408-F5FF5DFB366E
persistent identifier	https://treatment.plazi.org/id/03C3FA6F-201C-FFFC-23C1-5457FB4073F4
treatment provided by	Felipe
scientific name	Rhoptromeris
status

Treatment

Key to the West Palearctic species of Rhoptromeris

Based on the keys by Nordlander (1978) and Nordlander and Grijpma (1991)

Rhoptromeris armeniaca is not included in the key since the poor condition of the only known specimen prevents the visualisation of important diagnostic characters. Its species identity is discussed in the systematic treatment below.

1. Metapleura with an anteroventral cavity ( Figure 1a–c View Figure 1 ), posterior margin not depressed medially, or very weakly so ............................................................................................................... 2

– Metapleura without an anteroventral cavity ( Figure 1d View Figure 1 ), posterior margin strongly depressed medially ..................................................................................................................................... 7

2. The foveae of the pronotal plate confluent in the middle, forming a transverse furrow ( Figure 2b–d View Figure 2 ). Compound eyes and ocelli relatively large................................... 3

– The foveae of the pronotal plate separated by a medial bridge ( Figure 2a View Figure 2 ). Compound eyes and ocelli relatively small................................................................................ 5

3. Antennae very long, in males 2× body length, in females clearly longer than body ( Figure 3e,f View Figure 3 ). Female antennae with an indistinct club of 7–8 elongate segments hardly wider than pre-club segments, each several times longer than wide. Posterior incision of metapleura present ( Figure 1d View Figure 1 ). Wings relatively narrow, marginal cell elongate.............. .............................................................................................................. Rhoptromeris leptocornis sp. nov.

– Antennae less elongate, in males less than twice body length, in females same size or shorter than body, with a more or less distinct club, club segments only a few times longer than wide. Posterior metapleural incision absent ( Figure 1a,b View Figure 1 ). Wings relatively broad ....................................................................................................................................... 4

4. Mesoscutum humped, marginal cell with vein Rs longer than 2r. Female antennae shorter than body, with pre-club flagellomeres brown. Club distinct, 6-segmented, each segment compact, only slightly longer than wide ( Figure 4b View Figure 4 ). Male flagellomeres relatively short, stout ( Figure 5f View Figure 5 )................... ................... Rhoptromeris strobigena

– Mesoscutum only weakly arched, marginal cell almost 3 times as long as deep, veins 2r and Rs subequal in length. Female antennae as long as body, pre-club flagellomeres yellow or light brown. Club indistinct, 7-segmented, segments relatively elongate, about twice as long as wide ( Figure 4d View Figure 4 ). Male flagellomeres more elongate ( Figure 3d View Figure 3 ).............................................. Rhoptromeris koponeni sp. nov.

5. Male antennae completely dark, flagellomeres stout, F2 strongly widened and clearly longer than F1 ( Figures 1b View Figure 1 , 4j View Figure 4 ). Femora of fore and middle legs expanded, especially on females ( Figure 5a View Figure 5 ). Female club distinctly 7-segmented ( Figure 4i View Figure 4 ). Legs relatively short.................................................................................. Rhoptromeris heptoma (cf. also the rare Rhoptromeris carinata , known only from a handful of specimens collected in Romania. The species exhibits remarkably short legs and antennae and exceptionally elongate metasoma.)

– Male antennae with F1 and F2 usually lighter than remaining flagellomeres, F2 not much wider than other flagellomeres. Both sexes with relatively long legs, femora of fore and middle legs slender............................................................................................................ 6

6. Dorsal scutellar surface with reticulate sculpture ( Figure 6a View Figure 6 ), marginal cell elongate, approximately 3 times as long as wide. Female antenna 0.8–0.9× body length, F3 relatively long, often as long as F2 and F4, indistinct club of 7 or 8 segments ( Figure 4a View Figure 4 ). Central club segments about 2.5 times longer than wide. Male F2 distinctly curved.................................................................... Rhoptromeris dichromata sp. nov.

– Dorsal scutellar surface smooth or only weakly sculptured, marginal cell shorter, approximately 2 times as long as wide. Female antenna 0.6–0.7× body length, F3 relatively short, usually much shorter than F2 or F4, distinct 6-segmented club ( Figure 4c View Figure 4 ). Central club segments about 1.5 times longer than wide. Male F2 weakly curved............................................................. ............................................................. Rhoptromeris villosa

7. The lateral foveae of the pronotal plate separated by a medial bridge ( Figure 2a View Figure 2 ). Scutellar foveae of normal size, scutellar dorsal surface with reticulate sculpture in the posterior part. Scutellum higher, more projected posteriorly, less strongly sloping, with a distinct dorsolateral border. Mesoscutum relatively humped. Compound eyes relatively large....................................... ....................................... Rhoptromeris nigriventris

– The lateral foveae of the pronotal plate confluent in the middle ( Figure 2b–d View Figure 2 ). Scutellar foveae very narrow ( Figure 6d View Figure 6 ), scutellar dorsal surface largely smooth. Scutellum remarkably short, low, strongly sloping. Mesoscutum relatively flat. Compound eyes relatively small ..................................................................................................... 8

8. Posterior incision of metapleura present ( Figure 1c,d View Figure 1 ).............................................................. ............................................................................................ Rhoptromeris macaronesiensis sp. nov.

– Posterior incision of metapleura absent ( Figure 1a,b View Figure 1 ).............. Rhoptromeris ru fi ventris