Enicospilus flavus, (Fabricius)

FERNÁNDEZ-TRIANA, JOSÉ L., 2005, The taxonomy and biogeography of Cuban Ophioninae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), Zootaxa 1007 (1), pp. 1-60 : 43-44

23. E. flavus (Fabricius) ( Fig. 10l )

Ichneumon flavus Fabricius, 1775: 341 . Lectotype ♀, “America”, designated by Townes & Townes,

1966: 178 (Copenhagen). Ophion flavus (Fabricius) Fabricius, 1798: 236 . Ichneumon flavarius Thunberg, 1822: 262 . [Unnecessary replacement name.] Ophion concolor Cresson, 1865: 56 . Lectotype ♂, Cuba (PANS), designated by Gauld, 1988: 230.

[Synonymized by Townes in Wolcott, 1948: 765.] Ophion concolor Cresson ; Fox 1891: 337. Enicospilus concolor (Cresson) Ashmead, 1900b: 271 . Enicospilus guyanensis Cameron, 1911: 179 . Holotype ♀, Guyana (BMNH). [Synonymized by

Morley 1914: 409.] Enicospilus flavus (Fabricius) ; Hooker, 1912: 71. [In part.] Henicospilus concolor (Cresson) Morley, 1912: 33 . Henicospilus flavoscutellatus var. concolor (Cresson) ; Enderlein, 1921: 82. Enicospilus concolor (Cresson) ; Wolcott, 1923: 65. Henicospilus concolor (Cresson) ; Ogilvie, 1928: 48. Enicospilus flavus (Fabricius) ; Townes & Townes, 1966: 178.

According to Gauld (1988) this species is widely distributed throughout much of the Neotropical region, but it appears to be extremely abundant on the Caribbean islands, where it is the most commonly collected species of the genus. Even though it was distributed across the archipelago it was not the commonest species, at least with present data from Cuban collections.

Gauld (1988) did not mention authenticated host records for the species. That was partially due because of many early records of E. flavus were actually misidentifications of E. trilineatus . Certainly both species can be confused, even in Gauld (1988) key to Mesoamerican species, especially if laterotergite is not clearly differentiate and it becomes

hard to choose one of the key couplets. That is the reason why I have intentionally avoided the use of that character in the key to Cuban Enicospilus . Nevertheless, there is a rather easy to see character that clearly separates both species: labrum (0.4­0.5 times as long as broad in E. trilineatus and 0.2 in E. flavus ).

I have seen two authenticated specimens with lepidopterans host records: Mocis sp. (Noctuidae) and Diaphania hyalinata L. ( Pyralidae ).

MATERIAL EXAMINED: WC. CH: Managua , Arroyo Naranjo, XII­1979, César (1 ♀, MNHNCu) . Santiago de Las Vegas , Boyeros, I­1922, S. Bruner (1 undetermined sex, IES) . LH: Melena del Sur , IV­1982, A. Campos (2 ♀, UCLV) . MT: San Francisco , Ciénaga de Zapata, IV­1992, A. Stark (1 ♀, UCLV) . CC. VC: Santa Clara , II­1996, J. Díaz (1 ♀, UCLV) ; XII­1992, E. Pozo (1 ♀, UCLV) . EPICA, Santa Clara , I­1992, H. Grillo (1 ♀, UCLV) . SS: Topes de Collantes , Trinidad, XI­1994, E. Pozo (2 ♂ & 2 ♀, BIOECO) ; XI/ 2001, Light Trap (2 ♀, BIOECO) . El Jíbaro, La Sierpe , X­1972, Light Trap (1 ♂, UCLV) . CA: Loma de Cunagua , Bolivia, XII­1975 (1 ♀, UCLV) . CM: Florida , VI­1955, P. Alayo (1 ♂, IES) . EC. GR: 1995 & 1996, no further data (5 ♀, BIOECO) . Peralejo , Bayamo, VI­ 2001 & IX­2002, Light Trap, J. Fernández (2 ♂ & 5 ♀, BIOECO) . Buey Arriba , XI­1999, J. Fernández (1 ♀, BIOECO) . SC: Jardín Botánico , Santiago de Cuba, XII­1999, J. Fernández (1 ♀, BIOECO) . El Pinal, Sierra Maestra, no further data, (1 ♀, BIOECO) . Río La Mula , Guamá, Yellow Pan Trap, VI­1996 (1 ♀, BIOECO) .

Figures

FIGURE 10: Fore wings of Cuban Enicospilus. a: glabratus (Say), b: carlota Gauld, c: trilineatus (Brullé), d: teremari sp. nov. e: cressoni Hooker, f: neotropicus Hooker, g: guatemalensis (Cameron), h: cubensis (Norton), i: iangauldi sp. nov., j: gallegosi Gauld, k: fernaldi Hooker, l: flavus (Fabricius), m: woldai Gauld, n: sondrae Gauld, o: liesneri Gauld. p: grilloi sp. nov., q: wahli sp. nov., r: cheosi sp. nov., s: purgatus (Say), t: flavoscutellatus (Brullé), u: howdenorum Gauld, v: hansonorum sp. nov.