Deutereulophus brevipennis (Erdös) Burks, 2012

Burks, R. A., 2012, Taxonomic studies on some little known genera of Palearctic Eulophidae and Pteromalidae (Hymenoptera: Chalcidoidea), Zootaxa 3487, pp. 24-40 : 26

Deutereulophus brevipennis (Erdös) comb. nov.

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:39CA28A4-5BD5-49AA-904F-F1511E4E0DD8

( Figs 1–8)

Bryopezus brevipennis Erdös, 1951: 172 .

Material examined ( HNHM). Lectotype (♀): “ VÁCZ NASZÁLHEGY BIRO ” / “ 1924. XI.10. ” / “Hym. Typ. No. 4733 Mus. Budapest.” . Paralectotype (♂): “Ósebeshely Biró. 913. VII”

Remarks. The monospecific genus Bryopezus was previously distinguished from most other genera near Elachertus Spinola in having a facial carina ( Peck et al. 1964). This carina could not be evaluated in the lectotype female and paralectotype male of Bryopezus brevipennis , which are mounted on cards with their faces embedded in glue ( Figs 5, 6). Though females have unusually strong surface sculpture, males very strongly resemble those of Deutereulophus Schulz , especially in having elongate and slightly asymmetrical (sawtoothed) flagellomeres ( Fig. 6) and a long petiole with strong lateral flange-like branches anteriorly ( Fig. 7). Both sexes also have strongly setose eyes, a deep fovea where the axilla meets the scutellar disc ( Figs 2, 4, 7), and the same arrangement of mesoscutal midlobe setae as in Deutereulophus , with 3 pairs of setae of which the middle pair is tiny and positioned near the notauli ( Figs 2, 4).

In addition to the facial carina, B. brevipennis would differ from some Deutereulophus species in lacking any vertexal carina or occipital carina ( Figs 1, 2), and in the more strongly sculptured metascutellum and propodeum of females ( Fig. 4). Schauff (2000) pointed out that Deutereulophus has a distinct area of the propodeum posterior to the spiracle, which is angularly distinct from surrounding areas and facing posteriad, and set off at least partially by carinae that are not parts of the plicae. This area also bears many setae, presumably callar setae, in contrast to bare areas anterior to the plicae. This feature is present but not as distinctly indicated in B. brevipennis ( Figs 4, 7), which lacks distinct propodeal carinae aside from the median carina (which is also split and irregularly indicated in females). Some of the above mentioned features were evaluated as reasons for keeping Bryopezus distinct. However, Schauff (2000) mentioned that not all species of Deutereulophus have vertex carinae or occipital carinae, and that the propodeal plicae are incomplete in some species. Although the facial carina is an interesting and distinctive feature, it is not shared with any other eulophine species, nor is the propodeal sculpture of females. These features are probably best treated as distinctive characteristics of the species, rather than a reason for distinguishing it on a generic level, as this would likely render Deutereulophus paraphyletic.

Bouček (1988) defined two species groups of Deutereulophus (as Entedonomorpha Girault ). The froudei - group is defined by its strongly hourglass-shaped set of scutellar grooves ( Bouček 1988: Fig. 1133). The tennysoni - group is defined as having 3 funicular segments and 4 claval segments in females ( Bouček 1988: Fig. 1135) with straight scutellar grooves. The form of the antenna in tennysoni -group species is very unusual in Eulophinae , but is characteristic of B. brevipennis ( Fig. 1). This and the other shared features of B. brevipennis and some Deutereulophus species are here used as evidence that B. brevipennis is just a distinctive member of the Deutereulophus tennysoni species group.