Oomyzus Rondani, 1870

Song, Hai-Tian, Fei, Ming-Hui, Li, Bao-Ping, Zhu, Chao-Dong & Cao, Huan-Xi, 2020, A new species of Oomyzus Rondani (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae) reared from the pupae of Coccinella septempunctata (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) in China, ZooKeys 953, pp. 49-60 : 49

Genus Oomyzus Rondani, 1870

Oomyzus Rondani 1870: 141. Type species: Pteromalus gallerucae Fonscolombe, 1832, by monotypy.

Diagnosis.

Body black with metallic tinge varying from very weak to quite strong, never with pale markings. Malar sulcus straight or nearly so. Submarginal vein with 1 dorsal seta. MLM with 2-5 adnotaular setae; median line often absent, sometimes present, indistinct (e.g. O. propodealis Graham) or distinct (some species of gallerucae -group). Antenna with F1 often shorter than pedicel; male scape with a variable ventral plaque, from short to very long, and flagellum with rather short basal whorl of setae, or without whorls.

Remarks.

The genus Oomyzus is difficult to characterize and shares some features with some other genera of Tetrastichinae , such as Baryscapus , Tetrastichus , and Quadrastichus . Oomyzus usually has 3 or 4 adnotaular setae on MLM, but Quadrastichus has only 2; Oomyzus often has the female antenna with quadrate funiculars, but Quadrastichus has funiculars at least 2 × as long as broad; Oomyzus has the female gaster shorter and less acute apically. Some Oomyzus species (e.g. O. brevistigma , O. scaposus , and O. sokolowskii ) were originally regarded as Tetrastichus species. However, the characteristic Y-shaped carina formed by the paraspiracular carina and an additional carina running posterior-medially from the paraspiracular carina differentiates Tetrastichus from Oomyzus . The genus Baryscapus is distinguished from Oomyzus by the submarginal vein having 2 dorsal setae and a distinctly curved malar sulcus, although some species of Oomyzus occasionally have 2 dorsal setae on the submarginal vein (e.g. O. sokolowskii ) and sometimes have a more or less curved malar sulcus (e.g. O. pegomyae Graham), which can be differentiated from Baryscapus by the combination of other diagnostic characters listed above. See also discussions in Graham (1991) and LaSalle (1994).