Heptascelio Kieffer

Johnson, Norman F., Masner, Lubomír, Musetti, Luciana, Noort, Simon Van, K, Rajmohana, Darling, Christopher & Polaszek, Antonia Guidotti Andrew, 2008, Revision of world species of the genus Heptascelio Kieffer (Hymenoptera: Platygastroidea, Platygastridae), Zootaxa 1776, pp. 1-51 : 4-9

Heptascelio Kieffer

Heptascelio Kieffer, 1916: 58 . Original description. Type: Heptascelio lugens Kieffer , by monotypy and original designation. Kieffer, 1926: 266, 345 (description, keyed); Muesebeck & Walkley, 1956: 358 (citation of type species); Baltazar, 1966: 176 (catalog of species of the Philippines); Masner, 1976: 6, 15 (description, keyed); Mani & Sharma, 1982: 151 (keyed); Johnson, 1992: 400 (catalog of world species); Narendran & Ramesh Babu, 1996: 89, 90 (diagnosis, key to species); Lê, 2000: 32 (keyed); Rajmohana, 2006: 115, 124, 125 (description, keyed, key to species of India).

Zoobank registration:

Original concept: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:8D9935C2-66D7-4A34-83D2-6F315945A951 Current concept: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:535EC4F7-E050-46F4-9658-16D8D9EF3267

Diagnosis. Heptascelio is distinguished from other genera of Scelionini sensu Masner (1976) by the elongate undivided spine of the metascutellum, the 12-merous male antenna, the presence of well-defined felt fields on the ventral metasoma, and, in comparison with Oreiscelio Kieffer , the elongate basal flagellomeres. Description. Moderate-sized, length 2.3–4.8 mm; body moderately elongate, robust, antenna with welldeveloped clava, moderately elongate; body dark brown to black; macropterous.

http://www.tdwg.org Head in dorsal view weakly transverse to nearly quadrate; vertex punctate, rugulose, areolate rugose; hyperoccipital carina absent; occipital carina well-developed, continuous medially, crenulate; lateral ocellus nearly contiguous with inner orbit of compound eye or distinctly separated, OOL up to 2 times diameter of lateral ocellus; compound eye large, glabrous; frons narrow dorsally, shallowly concave, usually with transverse carina demarcating dorsal margin of frontal depression; interantennal process present, short, often excavate medially; submedian carina absent; orbital carina absent; lower frons, including cheek, without fanlike striae; interocular space distinctly shorter than eye height dorsally, inner orbits usually strongly diverging ventrally; clypeus very short, strongly transverse, flat, truncate apically, lateral corners not produced, not subequally divided by transverse carina into anteclypeus and postclypeus; malar sulcus present; gena strongly expanded, convex, deeply punctate, rugulose, areolate rugose; labrum external, visible below clypeus, transverse to semicircular, sometimes hidden behind closed mandibles; mandible moderate to elongate, apex with two apical, acute, subequal teeth; maxillary palpus 3-segmented, all segments cylindrical; labial palpus 2-segmented; antenna 12-merous in both sexes; radicle inserted apically into A1, nearly parallel to longitudinal axis of A1; A1 not distinctly flattened, more or less cylindrical; A3 distinctly subequal to or shorter longer than A2; gustatory sensilla on female antenna arranged in longitudinal pairs on apical antennomeres; claval formula A12– A7:1-2-2-2-2-2; male antenna with tyloid on A5.

Mesosoma in dorsal view longer than wide, in lateral view quadrate or longer than high; pronotum in dorsal view broad laterally, anterolateral corners angulate; transverse pronotal carina weakly indicated laterally, fading and mixed with coarse surface sculpture medially; vertical epomial carina present; dorsal epomial carina present; anterior face of pronotum vertical, not visible in dorsal view; lateral face of pronotum deeply concave below dorsal epomial carina, facing anterolaterally; netrion present, narrow to moderately wide, open ventrally; anterior margin of mesoscutum horizontal, not flexed ventrally to meet pronotum; mesoscutum pentagonal in outline, posterolateral corner rounded; parapsidal lines sometimes visible; notauli usually indistinguishable; skaphion absent; transscutal articulation well-developed, crenulate; mesoscutellum quadrate to trapezoidal, posterolateral area often angulate or produced into distinct spines, mesoscutellum weakly convex anteriorly, often depressed posteriorly, sometimes with medial longitudinal furrow; axilla small, dorsal margin sinuate; metanotum narrow, metascutellum clearly differentiated, produced into single median spine; dorsal surface of propodeum sparsely setose; keels, plicae of propodeum usually well-developed, inner propodeal projection well-developed, fairly short, outer propodeal projection moderately to strongly developed, often curved; posterior face of propodeum usually carinate or areolate rugose, sparsely setose; mesopleural depression well-developed; mesopleural carina absent or represented by 1–3 fine ridges; anteroventral portion of mesepisternum strongly sculptured, sternaulus, postacetabular foveae not distinguishable; mesopleural pit present, distinct; anterior margin of ventral portion of mesepisternum and acetabular carina transverse, not extended forward between fore coxae; mesepimeral sulcus indicated by dorsoventral line of strong foveae extending to lower margin of mesopleuron; dorsal corner of mesepimeron prominent, rounded or angulate, not produced into sharp posteriorly directed tooth; mesopleuron usually with a strong longitudinal ledge below subalar pit, dorsally delimiting mesopleural furrow; anteroventral portion of metapleuron continuous with lateral face, sparsely to moderately setose; metapleural pit present, sometimes difficult to distinguish amid coarse sculpture; posterior margin of metapleuron narrowly lamellate; legs not unusually proportioned; posterior surface of hind coxa smooth, sparsely setose to glabrous; trochantellus absent; tibial spur formula 1-1-1; tarsal formula 5-5-5; tarsomeres tapering in width apically; pretarsal claws simple; apex of fore wing extending to or slightly beyond apex of metasoma, hyaline to infuscate; R straight, extending at most through basal 0.5 of length of fore wing, with strong bristles at least basally, curved costad apically, bifurcating near apex before reaching costal margin, r-rs straight, R1 ending at or near costal margin, postmarginal vein absent, in two species R ending in white to yellow apical cloud, apical details indistinguishable; bulla absent; basal vein sometimes indicated by broad, diffuse infuscation; no other tracheate veins in fore wing; hind wing with tracheate portion of R present only basally; three hamuli present.

Metasoma generally flattened dorsally, anterior sterna convex, becoming flatter posteriorly; subequally divided, second segment slightly longest; female with 6 terga, 6 sterna visible externally, male with 8 terga, 7 sterna visible externally; submarginal ridge well-developed, defined by narrow laterotergites to form deep submarginal rim; no spiracles visible; all terga with distinct longitudinal striae nearly throughout, basal rows of crenulae present on each segment, continuous with striae; base of T1 with submedial depressions into which inner propodeal angles fit, depressions shallow to deep; female T6 without median raised field of microsetae or secretion; S1 not laterally compressed; anterior margin of S2 straight; felt fields present on S2– S3 or S3–S4, distinct.

Comments. Heptascelio is very similar in its diagnostic characters to Oreiscelio . Both genera have the pronotum large, and the anterior apex of the mesoscutum does not flex downwards to meet the pronotum. The basal flagellomeres of the female antenna in Oreiscelio are strongly transverse and A7 is massive, giving the antenna an overall short and stout appearance. The female antenna of Heptascelio has A3 more elongate and A7 is not so distinctly larger than the following clavomeres. Oreiscelio lacks distinct felt fields on the metasomal sterna. Rarely, especially in specimens with less sculpture, a slight difference in sculpture and density of setae can be perceived in Oreiscelio . In contrast, the felt fields in Heptascelio species are distinct, having the setae both shorter than those in the surrounding area and much more densely packed. Both genera have species in which the scutellar corners are strongly produced, the apex of the mesoscutellum excavate, and have a median longitudinal furrow on the mesoscutellum. In neither genus are these characters found in all species. The primary distinguishing character in the key of Masner (1976) is the metascutellar spine: bifid in Oreiscelio , a single median spike in Heptascelio . Some specimens of Oreiscelio have only a shallow indentation at the apex of the spine, and on this character alone the two genera can be difficult to separate. But in combination with the length of the basal flagellomeres and the metasomal felt fields, we believe that the two genera are still sufficiently distinguishable that we can still treat them as separate taxa. A closer examination of the relationships among species of these two genera, and a better understanding of the diversity within other scelionine genera, will help to more definitively resolve this issue.

Details on Heptascelio taxonomy, distribution, and biology as well as images are available on-line at the data portal to the Platygastroidea PBI project (http://purl.oclc.org/NET/ hymenoptera /Platygastroidea) and, for Afrotropical species, at WaspWeb (http://www.waspweb.org/).

Link to Distribution Map 15. Heptascelio is found throughout the Old World tropics (excluding Australia), in continental Africa from Cameroon east to Kenya and south to South Africa; in Asia from India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and southeast Asia east to Taiwan, Philippines and Papua.

Females (unknown for H. aquilinus )

1. Hind tibiae and often mid tibiae with long black bristles intermixed with normal setation (Fig. 77)..........2

– Hind tibiae with short light-colored setae only.............................................................................................4

2. Female with head and mesosoma dark brown, metasoma yellow (Figs. 31–33); felt fields present on S3 and S4 (Fig. 31, ff); dorsal margin of frontal scrobe strongly developed, incised medially........................... ................................................................................................ Heptascelio dispar Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Body entirely black (except appendages); felt fields on S2 and S3 (as on Fig. 37); dorsal margin of frontal

http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu/HymOnline/map-large.html?id=491&view=all

scrobe with low carina, evenly arcuate.........................................................................................................3 3. S3 and S4 crenulate basally, elsewhere with scattered setigerous punctures, surface otherwise smooth; mesepisternum below mesopleural depression smooth (Fig. 60); outer propodeal projection significantly longer than inner propodeal projection (Fig. 61); netrion glabrous................................................................ ............................................................................................... Heptascelio orarius Johnson & Masner, n.sp.

– S3 and S4 with strong longitudinal furrows over entire surface (Fig. 81); mesepisternum below mesopleural furrow strongly rugulose (Figs. 74, 80); outer and inner propodeal projections subequal in length (Fig. 78); Netrion densely setose .................................... Heptascelio striatosternus Narendran & Ramesh Babu

4. Netrion glabrous (e.g., Figs. 54, 86, 90); T1 without raised sublateral longitudinal lamella, at most with low carina......................................................................................................................................................5

– etrion densely setose (e.g., Figs. 22, 38); T1 with strongly raised sublateral lamella (Figs. 25, 26)..........12

5. Mesoscutellar spines absent, posterior margin of mesoscutellum with two rounded lobes (Figs. 45, 91)...6

– Mesoscutellar spines elongate, acute (Figs. 3, 9, 55, 87, 95).......................................................................8

6. Mesoscutum areolate rugose (Fig. 45); all coxae dark brown to black (Fig. 43) ........................................... ........................................................................... Heptascelio lateralis Johnson, van Noort & Masner, n.sp.

– Mesoscutum sparsely punctate (Fig. 91); all coxae yellow (Fig. 90) ...........................................................7

7. Outer propodeal projection distinctly longer than inner, extending beyond basal half of T1 (Figs. 70, 71); propodeum with strong transverse carinae between longitudinal rugae (Fig. 70); parapsidal lines evanescent; metascutellar spine straight .......................................... Heptascelio sicarius Johnson & Musetti, n.sp.

– Outer propodeal projection only slightly longer than inner, not reaching beyond basal half of T1 (Fig. 90); propodeum longitudinally carinate, without cross-striae; parapsidal lines distinct; metascutellar spine downturned at apex .................................................................... Heptascelio teres Johnson & Masner, n.sp.

8. Mesopleuron below depression entirely smooth (Fig. 54); frontal scrobe entirely smooth (Fig. 56); T3 and T4 smooth medially, with longitudinal sculpture effaced ....... Heptascelio noyesi Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Mesopleuron below depression coarsely sculptured, rugose-punctate (Figs. 2, 8, 86, 94); frontal scrobe sculptured in lower half (Figs. 4, 10, 88, 96); T3 and T4 longitudinally striate medially............................9

9. Mesoscutellum with rough polygonal rugulosity (Figs. 9, 95); fore wing basally (below R) hyaline or weakly infuscate.........................................................................................................................................10

– Mesoscutellum with strong longitudinal ridges (Figs. 3, 87); fore wing basally (below R) with darkly pigmented longitudinal streak..........................................................................................................................11

10. Mesoscutum with dense transverse rugae and punctures between longitudinal ridges (Fig. 9); lower frontal scrobe with irregular rugulosity (Fig. 10); frons between anterior ocellus and margin of frontal depression coarsely areolate throughout ................................................ Heptascelio anthonyi Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Mesoscutum with few transverse ridges between longitudinal ridges (3–4 through length of furrow between ridges, Fig. 95); lower scrobe with dense transverse striae (Fig. 96); frons between anterior ocellus and margin of frontal depression with sculpture effaced medially ........................................................... ........................................................................................... Heptascelio watshami Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

11. Mesepisternum in posterior half of mesopleural depression areolate-rugose (Fig. 86); mesoscutum with 6– 9 strong longitudinal ridges and wide, smooth interspaces (Fig. 87); T1 with strongly raised median keel; tibiae and basal flagellomeres dark brown (Fig. 85) ..................................................................................... ........................................................................... Heptascelio strigatus Masner, Johnson & van Noort, n.sp.

– Mesepisternum in posterior half of mesopleural depression with distinct diagonal striae (Fig. 2); mesoscutum with numerous (16) fine longitudinal ridges and narrow interspaces (Fig. 3); T1 with at most low median keel; tibiae and basal flagellomeres pale in color (Fig. 1)................................................................. ............................................................................. Heptascelio albipes Masner, van Noort & Johnson, n.sp.

12. Mesoscutum punctate, with broad smooth interspaces between punctures (Figs. 19, 29, 49, 67).............13

– Mesoscutum areolate-rugose, sometimes with distinct longitudinal elements in sculpture (Figs. 23, 39) 16

13. Notauli indicated as percurrent furrows (Fig. 19), mesal margin well-developed; mesoscutum with large smooth area laterad of notaulus .............................................. Heptascelio bivius Johnson & Masner, n.sp.

– Notauli, at most, vaguely defined as a row of separated punctures (Figs. 29, 49, 67); mesoscutum uniformly sculptured throughout.....................................................................................................................14

14. Mesoscutellum with widely separated setigerous punctures (Fig. 29); fore wing with dark longitudinal pigmented streak below R .......................................................... Heptascelio dayi Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Mesoscutellum areolate-rugose (Figs. 49, 67); fore wing without dark streak below R............................15

15. Posterolateral corners of mesoscutellum reduced to sharp points, distinctly shorter than spine of metascutellum (Fig. 66); mesoscutum without delicate longitudinal impressions (Fig. 67).......................... ......................................................................................... Heptascelio paralugens Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Posterolateral corners of mesoscutellum spikelike, spikes subequal in length to spine of metascutellum (Fig. 48); mesoscutum with delicate, shallow, longitudinal impressions (Fig. 49) ........................................ ............................................................................................................................. Heptascelio lugens Kieffer

16. Propodeum with distinct paramedian keels (Fig. 25); area between inner and outer propodeal projections smooth to striate; frontal depression completely sculptured (Fig. 24) ........................................................... ................................................................................................. Heptascelio castor Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Propodeum without distinct paramedian keels, with numerous longitudinal carinae (Fig. 41); area between inner and outer propodeal projections areolate rugose; sculpture of frontal depression variable, usually with a smooth area dorsally (Fig. 40) ...................... Heptascelio hamatus Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

Males (unknown for H. anthonyi , H. bivius , H. dayi , H. lateralis , H. sicarius , H. teres .)

1. Hind tibia with long black bristles interspersed among short yellow setae (as in Fig. 77)..........................2

– Hind tibia with only short yellow setae........................................................................................................4

2. Netrion densely setose (Fig. 84); metasomal sternites longitudinally furrowed laterally (Fig. 82); felt fields on S2, S3 ...................................................... Heptascelio striatosternus Narendran & Ramesh Babu

– Netrion glabrous (Figs. 12, 35); metasomal sternites smooth to punctate; felt fields on S3, S4..................3

3. Mesoscutum finely longitudinally striate throughout (Fig. 33); mandibles short, overlapping when closed, not protruding ventrally (Fig. 35) .......................................... Heptascelio dispar Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Mesoscutum nearly smooth, with weakly indicated microsculpture, setal bases punctate (Fig. 14); mandibles strongly protruding ventrally, apices meeting when closed, not overlapping (Figs. 12, 15, 16) ............ ............................................................................................ Heptascelio aquilinus Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

4. Netrion densely setose (as in Figs. 22, 38, 52, 66); Asian species...............................................................5

– Netrion glabrous (as in Figs. 5, 58, 64, 86, 94); African and Madagascar species......................................8

5. Mesoscutum sparsely punctate, with wide smooth areas between punctures (Figs. 51, 67)........................6

– Mesoscutum coarsely areolate-rugose to longitudinally rugulose (Figs. 23, 39).........................................7

6. Mesoscutum with delicate, shallow longitudinal impressions (Fig. 51); scutellar projections spikelike, distinct (Fig. 52) ....................................................................................................... Heptascelio lugens Kieffer

– Mesoscutum without longitudinal impressions, smooth between punctures (as in Fig. 67); scutellar projections short or absent (as in Fig. 66) ............................................................. Heptascelio paralugens n.sp.

7. Posterior face of propodeum with distinct paramedian carinae extending from apex of inner propodeal projection directly to anterior margin of propodeum (Fig. 25); area between inner and outer propodeal projections smooth to striate .................................................... Heptascelio castor Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

– Posterior face of propodeum without distinct paramedian carinae (Fig. 41), if carina visible arising from apex of inner propodeal projection, then it is sharply angled before reaching anterior margin of propodeum; area between inner and outer propodeal projections rugulose............................................................. ............................................................................................. Heptascelio hamatus Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

8. Ventral portion of mesepisternum nearly entirely smooth, with only punctures at bases of setae; metapleuron with large medial smooth area (Figs. 58, 64).........................................................................................9

– Ventral portion of mesepisternum strongly rugulose; metapleuron entirely rugulose (Figs. 5, 86, 94).....10

9. Mesosoma brick red (Figs. 63, 64); lateral margins of T3–4 densely punctate, margins of punctures coalescing; metapleuron "upright" in lateral view, appearing higher than long; A6–A10 strongly transverse, antenna appearing quite short ................................................ Heptascelio orarius Johnson & Masner, n.sp.

– Mesosoma black (Figs. 57, 58); lateral margins of T3–T4 sparsely punctate, punctures widely separated; metapleuron anteriorly inclined so that in lateral view it appears longer than high; antenna elongate (although A6–A10 are still transverse) ................................... Heptascelio noyesi Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

10. Apical half of fore wing distinctly infuscate; base of fore wing with strongly infuscated longitudinal streak below submarginal vein...................................................................................................................11

– Apical half of fore wing hyaline; base of fore wing with weakly indicated infuscate line below submarginal cell ............................................................................. Heptascelio watshami Masner & Johnson, n.sp.

11. Mesoscutellum areolate rugose, convex in lateral view; T2 and T3 evenly carinate across width................ ........................................................................... Heptascelio strigatus Masner, Johnson & van Noort, n.sp.

– Mesoscutellum finely longitudinally carinate (Fig. 6); flat in lateral view (Fig. 5); T2 and T3 medially smooth .................................................................. Heptascelio albipes Masner, van Noort & Johnson, n.sp.