Macroglenes Westwood

Mitroiu, Mircea-Dan, 2010, Revision of the Palearctic species of Macroglenes Westwood (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), Zootaxa 2563, pp. 1-34 : 3-5

Macroglenes Westwood

Macroglenes Westwood, 1832: 127 ; type species M. oculatus Westwood , by monotypy.

Pirene Haliday, 1833: 336 ; type species P. varicornis Haliday , by designation of Westwood 1839: 67. Synonymy by Bouċek, 1988: 480.

Corynocere Nees, 1834: 123 ; type species C. deplana Nees , by designation of Gahan & Fagan 1923: 39. Synonymy by Bouċek, 1988: 480.

Stenophrus Förster, 1841: 40 ; type species S. compressus Förster , by monotypy, syn. nov.

Calypso Haliday, 1844: 295 ; type species C. serratulae Haliday , by monotypy, syn. nov.

Euryophrys Förster, 1856: 144 ; new name for Calypso Haliday , syn. nov.

Phocion Girault, 1925: 91 –92; type species Ph. ipswichi Girault , by original designation. Synonymy by Bouċek, 1988: 480.

Pirenisca Ghesquière, 1946: 369 ; new name for Pirene Haliday. Synonymy by Bouċek, 1988: 480.

Diagnosis. Body black or with metallic luster, smooth, with at most engraved reticulation (Figs 1–2). Head with antennae inserted low, much nearer to clypeal margin than vertex (Figs 1–2). Antenna short, clavate, 12- segmented, though appearing 10-segmented due to normally highly reduced anelli (Fig. 6), and with at most 3 large funicular segments provided with sensilla (Fig. 3), the rest of them anelliform and sometimes closely compacted together (Figs 5–6). Clypeal margin more or less produced, usually entire (Figs 1–2) or sometimes incised medially (Fig. 32). Mesosoma flattened (Fig. 11) or more or less convex (Figs 9–10), mesoscutum with notauli complete, propodeum transverse and shiny. Fore wing with marginal cilia, long marginal vein and short stigmal and postmarginal veins (Figs 19–20, 35). Gaster sessile, ovipositor sheaths short, dorsally barely visible (Figs 17, 31) or up to slightly longer than hind tibia (Fig. 24). Hind tibia usually with a more or less regular row of hairs on inner side (= pecten) (Figs 13–16, 36–37). Males sometimes with inflated antennal scape (Fig. 7) or enlarged eyes (Fig. 2).

The only differences between species that have been classified in Stenophrus Förster and Macroglenes Westwood are in setation of the forewings and hind coxae. The forewings are almost entirely hairy (including the basal cell) in Stenophrus (Fig. 20) and less extensively hairy in Macroglenes (the basal cell with at most a large patch of hairs distally in M. paludum Graham , see Fig. 19), and the hind coxae have some hairs in Stenophrus and are glabrous in Macroglenes ( Graham 1969; Bouček & Rasplus 1991). Other characteristic traits like the convexity of the mesosoma, or antennal segments F3–F5 being large, are also present in Macroglenes . One of the former diagnostic features of Macroglenes that would separate it from Stenophrus , i.e. “if with three large [antennal] segments, then the mesosoma is flattened dorso-ventrally” ( Graham 1969: 330), is no longer valid after the discovery of M. hokkaidensis sp. nov. from Japan, which has three large funicular segments, a convex mesosoma (as in Stenophrus ) and Macroglenes -like forewings, i.e. with the basal cell bare and a well developed speculum. In fact, Graham (1969: 352) stated that “It must be admitted, however, that these two genera are pretty close to one another”.

PLATE 1 (FIGS 1–6). 1 and 2, Macroglenes penetrans (Kirby) , head, frontal view: 1, female; 2, male. 3 and 4, female antenna: 3, M. compressus (Förster) ; 4, M. penetrans (Kirby) . 5 and 6, M. gramineus (Haliday) : 5, female antenna; 6, flagellar segments (A1–A2 = anelli; F1–F5 = funicular segments).

PLATE 2 (FIGS 7–12). 7 and 8, antenna: 7, Macroglenes chalybeus (Haliday) , male; 8, M. varicornis (Haliday) , female. 9−11, female mesosoma, lateral view: 9, M. compressus (Förster) ; 10, M. penetrans (Kirby) ; 11, M. varicornis (Haliday) . 12, M. bouceki (Graham) , male hind tibia, inner side.