Megacampsomeris prismatica (Smith, 1855)

Figs 1A–B, 9E, 13E, 17E, 21E, 25E, 29E, 33E, 37E, 39E, 40E, 41E, 42E

Scolia prismatica Smith, 1855: 102 (holotype NHMUK, ♀, type locality = Shanghai).

Campsomeris (Megacampsomeris) prismatica var. quinquefasciata Betrem, 1928: 153 (holotype ♀, type locality = Mussoorie, Uttarakhand, India).

Campsomeris (Megacampsomeris) prismatica var. fulvoanalis Betrem, 1928: 153 (holotype ♀, type locality = Shueisheliao, Taiwan) (name spelt as C. prismatica var. fulvoapicata on p. 70).

Campsomeris prismatica f. shibatai Uchida, 1934: 259 (holotype ♀, type locality = Laiyi Township, Taiwan).

Elis (Dielis) prismatica – de Saussure & Sichel 1864: 199.

Campsomeris (Megacampsomeris) prismatica – Betrem 1928: 152.

Fiharbuxa prismatica – Argaman 1996: 212 (by implication).

Material examined

CHINA – Hong Kong • 1 ♂; Tai Tam; 22°14′45″ N, 114°13′23″ E; 28 Jun.–12 Jul. 2018; C. Taylor and Cheung Shun Chi leg.; Malaise trap; HKBM • 1 ♂; New Territories; May–Jul. 2018; C. Taylor and Cheung Shun Chi leg.; Malaise trap; HKBM • 1 ♂; Tai Tam; 29 Mar. 1998; C. Barthélémy leg.; hand net, ref.: X046.Z.Hy.1; CBC • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 27 Jul.–10 Aug. 2019; C. Barthélémy leg.; Malaise trap, ref.: M429.C.Hy.1; CBC • 1 ♂; Pak Sha O; 22°26′59″ N, 114°19′04″ E; alt. 70 m; 19–26 Apr. 2004; C. Barthélémy leg.; Malaise trap, ref.: M011.C.Hy.31; CBC • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 21–26 Jun. 2006; C. Barthélémy leg.; Malaise trap ref.: M044.C.Hy.12; CBC • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 7 Aug.–3 Sep. 2011; C. Barthélémy leg.; Malaise trap ref.: M097.C.Hy.4; CBC • 1 ♂; same collection data as for preceding; 10–24 Aug. 2018; C. Barthélémy leg.; Malaise trap ref.: M432.C.Hy.1; CBC .

Description

Male

STANDARD RATIOS (n = 9). L: 13.02–19.4 mm (mean = 15.72 mm); CR: 1.08–1.18 (mean = 1.13); OOR: 1.53–2.08 (mean = 1.71); CLR: 0.66–0.78 (mean = 0.71); MER: 1.17–1.33 (mean = 1.21); OMR: 0.99– 1.06 (mean = 1.04); FRR: 1.63–1.92 (mean = 1.78); MSR: 0.67–0.83 (mean = 0.78); TER: 1.46–1.71 (mean = 1.59).

HEAD. Head mostly densely punctate except clypeus impunctate medially and anteriorly (Fig. 17E); frontal spatium well defined posteriorly; front fissura present between posterior margin of frontal spatium and anterior ocellus.

MESOSOMA. Dorsum of pronotum densely punctate (Fig. 25E); mesoscutum and scutellum mostly moderately punctate (Fig. 25E); metanotum and dorsomedian area of propodeum densely punctate (Fig. 29E). Lateral panels of mesosoma with punctation largely obscured by dense, appressed pile; mesopleuron moderately punctate medially; upper panel of metapleuron impunctate; lower panel of metapleuron and lateral panel of propodeum moderately punctate. Scutellum and metanotum without median longitudinal carina (Fig. 29E). Dorso-median area of propodeum without distinct tubercule medially (Fig. 29E).

METASOMA. Metasoma with moderately strong angle between anterior and ventral faces of S 2 in lateral view (Fig. 33E); tergites uniformly and moderately punctate (Figs 33E, 37E), punctures becoming denser on apical tergites. T2 with no basal elevation (gradulus) (Fig. 37E).

WINGS. Fore wings with two submarginal cells and two recurrent veins; second recurrent vein reaching submarginal cell. Anterior half of fore wings with numerous short setae.

COLOUR AND VESTITURE. Integument mostly black (Figs 9E, 13E) with antennal flagellum ventrally more or less reddish, base of mandible yellow, clypeus yellow laterally and basally, scrobe sometimes with yellow mark ventrally (Fig. 17E); dorsum of pronotum and tegula yellow (Fig. 25E), scapula sometimes in part black, lateral yellow spots sometimes present on scutellum; pronotal callosity more or less yellow; legs with anterior plate of fore coxa yellow, ventral yellow stripes on all femora and dorsally on fore and mid tibiae; metasoma with narrow, transverse yellow bands on apical margins of T1–T4 (band on T4 may be interrupted medially) (Figs 33E, 37E) and shortly and laterally on apical margins of S2 and S3 (triangular apicolateral yellow spot may also be present on S4). Vestiture golden yellow on head and mesosoma (Fig. 9E), yellow to whitish on metasomal segments 1–4 (Fig. 37E), black on metasomal segments 5–7. Wings yellow, may be slightly infumated apically.

GENITALIA. Ventral side of paramere mostly glabrous, a few setae on the lateral side (Fig. 40E), dorsal side with sparse long setae on most of its surface (Figs 39E, 41E); volsella and cuspis volsellaris with dense setae on entire surfaces (Figs 40E, 42E); volsella bearing dense sensory cones on most of its external margin (Fig. 42E) and lamella on its inner margin (Fig. 39E). External margin of paramere moderately angled medially, rounded apically (Figs 39E, 40E); aedeagus with 10 teeth, the first apical tooth much reduced, serrated margin with shallow convex curvature (Fig. 42E).

Distribution (Fig. 1A–B)

China (Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guizhou, Heilongjiang, Henan, * Hong Kong, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shandong, Taiwan, Zhejiang,); Japan (Kagoshima, Tokyo, Honshu, Shikoku, Kyushu); Russia (Amur) (?); Indonesia (Java, Lombok, Sulawesi, Sumatra); Malaysia (Malacca, Perak, Pahang, Sarawak); India (Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Sikkim, Uttarakhand [Kausani], Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Odisha, Nagaland, Delhi); Nepal; Korea (Jeju); Myanmar (Tenasserim); Philippines. [Bingham 1897; Betrem 1928, 1941; Uchida 1934; Baltazar 1966; Wang 1992; Gupta & Jonathan 2003; Kumar & Kazmi 2008, Liu et al. 2021b].

Notes

Osten (2005) lists “ Elis iris Magretti, 1892 ” as a synonym of Megacampsomeris prismatica . Magretti (1892) usage of this name is for a redescription of Colpa iris Lepeletier, 1845 and is not an available name. Osten (2005) lists two subspecies of Megacampsomeris prismatica, the nominotypical subspecies and M. p. shibatai Uchida 1934 (NB. Despite Uchida’s [1934] usage of the notation “f.” in association with shibatai, it may be considered an available name as Uchida consistently used this notation for all subspecific forms – ICZN Art. 45.6.4). Betrem (1941) distinguished these two forms by the more reddish coloration of the vestiture in the latter but regarded them as overlapping in distribution. Until the relationship between these forms is better established, we refrain from using subspecific names for this species.

The record of this species by Betrem (1928 and 1941) in the Amur region of Far East Russia is somewhat dubious.