Campoplex maurotrochanter, Han & Achterberg & Chen, 2021

Han, Yuan-Yuan, Achterberg, Kees Van & Chen, Xue-Xin, 2021, The genus Campoplex Gravenhorst, 1829 (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae, Campopleginae) from China, Zootaxa 5066 (1), pp. 1-121 : 69-72

Campoplex maurotrochanter sp. nov.

Figs. 47–48

Material examined. Holotype: 1 female, Shaanxi, Ningshan Xunyangzhen, 6.VI.1998, Ma Yun, No 982824 ( ZJUH) . Paratypes: 1 female, Gansu, Wenxian Dianba , 16. VI. 1998, 900m, Ma Yun, No 982279 ; 1 female, Hebei, Zhangbei , 1981, Dai Junrong, No 820163 ; 1 female, Shaanxi, Huoditang Huodigou , 5. VI.1998, 1900m, Ma Yun, No 982683 ; 1 female, 1 male, Shaanxi, Qingling , 10. VI.1998, 1800m, Ma Yun, No 983990, 983977 ; 1 female, Shaanxi, Zhashui Niubeiliang , 15.VIII.2003, Tan Jiangli, No 201306781 .

Description. Female ( Fig. 47 ) holotype. Body length 4.3 mm, fore wing length 3.4 mm.

Head. Antenna with 27 flagellomeres; first flagellomere 1.25× longer than second flagellomere. Face ( Fig. 48E ) granulose. Clypeus ( Fig. 48E ) granulose, slightly convex, apical margin arched and blunt. Malar space granulose, 0.7× basal width of mandible. Mandible with a very weak lamella basally, upper tooth equal to the length of lower tooth. Frons granulose, median carina absent. Vertex granulose. Interocellar distance ( Fig. 48F ) 1.3× ocelloocular distance and 1.8× distance between median and lateral ocelli. Temple granulose, subpolished, not swollen behind eyes. Occipital carina evenly arched, reaching hypostomal carina above mandible base.

Mesosoma. Pronotum granulose dorsally, subpolished, trans-striate below. Mesoscutum ( Fig. 48G ) granulose, notauli indistinct. Scutellum granulose with sparse and minute punctures. Metanotum granulose-punctate. Mesopleuron ( Fig. 48B ) granulose-punctate, weakly trans-striate below tegula, speculum smooth and shiny. Metapleuron ( Fig. 48B ) granulose-punctate. Propodeum ( Fig. 48C ) with area basalis triangular, long and narrow; area superomedia finely granulose, subpolished; area petiolaris coarsely rugose; area superomedia confluent with area petiolaris, not depressed; all carina distinctly developed; propodeal spiracle small and round.

Wing. Fore wing ( Fig. 48A ) areolet present and with a short stalk emitting 2m-cu vein from its apical part. Marginal cell short, distal part of surrounding vein 2.0× longer than proximal one. Vein 1cu-a opposite M&RS. External angles of second discal cell acute (70°). Hind wing with nervellus inclivous, intercepted at lower 0.3.

Legs. Hind femur 5.0× longer than wide. Inner spur of hind tibia 0.5× as long as first tarsomere of hind tarsus. Tarsal claws nearly not pectinate, teeth very weak.

Metasoma. First metasomal segment ( Fig. 48H ) round in cross-section of basal 0.3, without dorso-lateral carina and lateral groove. First tergite 3.0× longer than width of postpetiole. Second tergite 0.7× as long as first tergite, 1.2× longer than its apical width; thyridium round, its distance from basal margin of tergite 1.5× its diameter. Third tergite 0.9× as long as its apical width. Sixth and seventh tergites without emarginations medially. Ovipositor sheath approx. 1.4× longer than hind femur, ovipositor ( Fig. 48D ) gradually upcurved.

Colour. Black. Mandible except teeth, palpi, yellowish brown; scape and pedicel blackish brown; tegula whitish; all trochantellus yellow; fore leg from trochantellus on yellowish brown, coxa, trochanter and apical tarsus blackish brown; mid leg with coxa, trochanter and femur ventrally blackish brown, femur dorsally and tibia medially yellowish brown, tibia basally and apically and tarsus brown; hind coxa, trochanter, and femur black, tibia yellowish brown medially, tibia basally and apically, and tarsus brown; metasoma entirely black.

Variation. Hind wing with nervellus intercepted at lower 0.3 or only slightly below middle; the specimen from Hebei province with metasoma from third tergite on not compressed.

Male. The surface of body shinier than in female; propodeal carina stronger than in female; otherwise quite similar to female.

Distribution. China (Gansu, Hebei, Shaanxi).

Comparative diagnosis. This species runs in the key by Maheshwary & Gupta (1977) to C. kalatopensis Gupta & Maheshwary, 1977 , but differs from the latter by having malar space 0.5× basal width of mandible, mesopleuron granulose-punctate and with punctures dense, area petiolaris coarsely rugose, and fore and mid trochanters blackish brown.

Etymology. Name derived from “mauros” (Latin for “dark”) and “trochanter” (Latin for “trochanter”), because all its trochanters are black.

Figures

FIGURE 47. Campoplex maurotrochanter sp. nov., female, habitus.

FIGURE 48. Campoplex maurotrochanter sp. nov., female. A, fore wing; B, mesopleuron; C, propodeum; D, ovipositor; E, head, anterior view; F, head, dorsal view; G, mesoscutum; H, first metasomal segment.